Tag: History

Posted in Exposition

A Lament for the Princes of Israel: Ezekiel 19:1-14

Posted on by writtenexposition

Reading: Ezekiel 19:1-14

CHAPTER DIVISION

1-9 THE ALLEGORY OF A LIONESS AND HER CUBS

10-14 THE ALLEGORY OF AN UPROOTED VINE

INTRODUCTION

Ezekiel chapter 19 continues the oracle of YHWH about ‘the land of Israel’ which commenced at 18:2. Ezekiel, instructed by YHWH, now presents a powerful lamentation for the ‘princes of Israel.’ The lament is in the form of two allegories: a lioness with her cubs and an uprooted vine. Ezekiel uses these to reflect upon the downfall of the Davidic kings of Judah. As with all parables, not just Ezekiel’s, it is unhelpful to speculate upon the meaning of every small detail. There are a variety of views on what different features of the parables represent.

When composing this dirge Ezekiel may have had in mind Jacob’s blessing upon Judah in Genesis 49. It mentions ‘a lion’s whelp’ and ‘the vine:’

…Judah is a lion’s whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up? The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be. Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass’s colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes… Gen 49:9-11

THE ALLEGORY OF A LIONESS AND HER CUBS (1-9)

(1) YHWH instructs Ezekiel to present a lamentation for ‘the princes of Israel.’ A lamentation (qiynāh) is a funeral song, elegy or dirge. The word is first used in 2 Sam 1:17 to describe David’s famous lament for Saul and Jonathan. This one in Ezekiel 19 is the first of six in the book of Ezekiel.

19:1-14 – A lament for Israel’s princes.
26:17 – A lament for Tyre
27:2-31 – A lament for Tyre
27:32-36 – A lament for Tyre
28:12-19 – A lament for the king of Tyre
32:2-16 – A lament for Pharaoh, King of Egypt

The ‘princes of Israel’ refers to the chieftains /rulers of Israel and in particular to the last few Davidic kings of Judah (see 12:10). Ezekiel does not call them kings; possibly to emphasise their subservience to foreign powers. Compare Jeremiah’s sorrowful prophecy about the Davidic kings in Jer 22:10-30.

(2) THE MOTHER LIONESS

Several words for lion occur in this passage: leḇiyyā’ – lioness; ’aryēh – lion (the animal); kep̱iyr – a lion, young lion (i.e. fierce).

Many commentators view the lioness as pointing to Judah (cf. Gen 49:9; Num 23:24; 24:9; Isa 29:1 – Ariel means lion of God; Rev 5:5) and her cubs as representing the royal house of Judah. In this allegory Judah the lioness lay down among other lions (the superpowers) and reared her cubs (the royal house) among young lions (the surrounding nations).

Others maintain that the reference is to Hamutal, a wife of King Josiah, whom the prophet Jeremiah referred to as queen [mother] in Jer 13:18. She was the mother of two of the last four kings of Judah; Jehoahaz (2 Kgs 23:31) and Zedekiah (2 Kgs 24:18; Jer 52:1).

(3-4) THE FIRST LION CUB

The mother lion raised her cubs in a politically dangerous environment. One in particular grew into a young lion and learned how to catch prey and devour men i.e. grew fierce and aggressive like those around it. The first lion cub is usually identified as Jehoahaz, son of Josiah and Hamutal (2 Kgs 23:31-34). The people chose him to succeed his father at age twenty-three but after a reign of just three months in 609 BCE ‘the nations also heard of him; he was taken in their pit (trap), and they brought him with chains (hooks) unto the land of Egypt.’ Jehoahaz was deported to Egypt by Pharoah Necho and his vassals, there he died. ‘Pit’ and ‘hook’ are vivid images that relate to the capture of wild animals. Despite his predatory nature Jehoahaz was easily subdued by Egypt.

(5-9) THE SECOND LION CUB

Disappointed by the fate of the first cub the mother (i.e. Judah), in desperation, took ‘another cub’ and reared him as young lion (i.e. to be aggressive). Some suggest that the second cub jointly represents Jehoiakim (605-598 BCE) and his son Jehoiachin (3 months in 597 BCE), 2 Kgs 24:8). Jehoiakim, however, was not chosen by the people of Judah but was installed by Pharaoh Necho as a puppet ruler. In addition, since Jehoiakim was not deported to Babylon but died at Jerusalem (Jer 22:18-19), it seems more likely that Ezekiel bypasses him and in this parable speaks of his son Jehoiachin (2 Kgs 24:8-16).

According to vv. 6-7 Jehoiachin too took his place among the other young lions (kings) and was ruthless, rapacious and cruel. His cruelty was not just exercised abroad but at home in Judah where he ‘knew’ (i.e. dishonoured) the nation’s defenceless widows (almanot) and laid towns to waste. Regarding widows, this may mean either that he made many women widows or that he took the wives of men he had killed into his harem. Instead of ‘widows’ many translations read ‘palaces’ (armonot), thus referring to the destruction of fortified citadels. The two words are textually similar. In either case the picture is one of ruin and desolation brought about by Jehoiachin’s oppressive rule. His ‘roaring’ represents the terror he inspired among his subjects,

As with the first cub, the nations (under Nebuchadnezzar’s rule) attacked and subjugated Jehoiachin – the net was spread over him, he was trapped in their pit, put in a cage in chains and sent to Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon, where he was imprisoned (Ezekiel was one of the aristocracy deported along with him at this time – 597 BCE). The result of the deportation was ‘that his voice should no more be heard upon the mountains of Israel.’ Jehoiachin’s rule, therefore, was brought to an end and his growl wasn’t heard again. Jehoiachin was released (2 Kgs 25:27-30) soon after the death of Nebuchadnezzar some thirty-seven years later but by that time any hope of his restoration to the throne of Judah in Jerusalem was long gone. He died in Babylon.

Note: The phrase ‘mountains of Israel’ occurs 17 times in the book of Ezekiel. See my previous post AN ORACLE ADDRESSED TO THE MOUNTAINS OF ISRAEL – EZEKIEL 6:1-14. Ezekiel chapter 36:1-38 contains another oracle, this time of blessing, addressed to ‘the mountains of Israel.’

THE ALLEGORY OF AN UPROOTED VINE (10-14)

(10) The allegory now changes from a lion to a vine. The image of the nation as a vine is a common one (e.g. Psa 80; Isa 5) and Ezekiel has already used it twice: see: Ezekiel’s Vine Allegory: a Prophecy about Jerusalem – 15:1-8 and Ezekiel 17:1-24 The Allegory of Two Eagles and a Vine. Most commentators agree that ‘in your blood’ (dam) is meaningless so there are many conjectures as to what Ezekiel might actually have meant. Some suggestions are:

  • ‘Blood’ refers to the juice of the grape therefore Ezekiel was thinking of sap, thus ‘full of vigour.’ Wine and the blood of grapes is mentioned also in Jacob’s blessing of Judah in Gen 49:11.
  • ‘Blood’ refers to ‘rest,’ thus Darby.
  • ‘Blood’ refers to ‘life.’
  • ‘Blood’ refers to ‘freshness.’
  • ‘Blood’ refers to ‘bloodline,’ thus NKJB
  • ‘Blood’ refers to ‘vineyard,’ thus HCSB, ESV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NCV
  • ‘Blood’ refers to ‘fruitfulness.’
  • dam (blood) ought to read dama (to be like) thus ERV 1885 gives ‘in thy likeness’ as a marginal reading.

‘Your mother is a vine.’ Again, the mother is likely to represent the nation of Israel/Judah which has produced the kings. The description of a vine ‘planted by the waters’ (17:5,8) and ‘fruitful and full of branches’ evokes a time of prosperity, perhaps alluding to the reigns of David and Solomon which were considered a golden age, when Israel was strong and enjoyed God’s favour and blessings.

(11) The vine sent out strong shoots or branches that were suitable for rulers’ sceptres and its stature was exalted among the thick branches (lit. ‘thicket of clouds,’ see 31:3,10,14). This suggests that Judah produced powerful kings and was prominent among the nations.

(12) Verse 12, which is similar to 17:10, prophesies the violent end of the vine. ‘Plucked up in fury and cast to the ground’ signifies the wrath of God; his judgement upon Judah resulting in the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the Davidic monarchy. The ‘east wind’ symbolises a destructive force, in this case an invading army that brings destruction and ruin. The drying up of its fruit represents the economic strain caused by the annual payment of huge sums in tribute to Babylon. The withering and consumption by fire of its ‘strong rods’ represent the desolation of the land, the death or exile of its leaders (the kings and nobles), and the widespread suffering of the people. Most likely Zedekiah’s reign and the final siege and destruction of Jerusalem are in view.

(13) The tall luxuriant vine planted by the waters has been forcibly uprooted and now finds itself transplanted in a dry and thirsty wilderness. This verse looks forward to the Babylonian Captivity (586-538 BCE) that began when a significant portion of the Judean population was deported to Babylonia by Nebuchadnezzar after the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE. However, it also describes the current situation of Ezekiel and the Jehoiachin exiles who had already been exiled to Babylon in 597 BCE.

(14) This verse further emphasises complete destruction. It is possible that the phrase ‘fire is gone out of a rod of her branches’ alludes either to internal conflict and corruption or to the devastation that was accelerated by the actions of one of the kings (referred to as ‘a rod’). One instantly thinks of Zedekiah’s breach of covenant and rebellion against Babylon (see 17:18).

There is ‘no strong rod to be a sceptre to rule’—the outcome is final and definitive. This statement effectively declares Judah’s demise as a sovereign state. The line of Davidic kings has come to a sad end.

The elegy formally closes with the words: ‘This is a lamentation, and shall be for a lamentation.’ Some of the details in the lament had already come to pass and some had yet to be fulfilled. This, therefore, is a lamentation for what has already happened and it will serve as a lamentation for what will soon happen.

SUMMATION

Ezekiel 19 laments the tragic downfall of the Davidic monarchy and the kingdom of Judah. It attributes this destruction not merely to external enemies, but to internal corruption and the unrighteousness of its own kings; who ultimately brought ruin upon themselves and the nation through cruelty and poor leadership. The lament emphasises the severe consequences of sin and the utter devastation that divine justice and judgement bring about.

Posted in Exposition

No More Sour Grapes! – Ezekiel chapter 18

Posted on by writtenexposition

INTRODUCTION

In Ezekiel 18 YHWH addresses, through the prophet, a common proverb (v.2) which is circulating among the exiles in Babylon. Two other proverbs (vv.19, 25) that express popular opinion are also quoted but they are not the main concern.

This chapter is usually classified as a disputation speech. Sweeney (2013, p.93) explains: ‘A disputation speech typically includes three major elements: a premise or thesis to be disputed, an alternative premise or thesis to be supported, and argumentation designed to demonstrate the validity of the alternative premise or thesis…’

Here the thesis is stated in v2—in the form of a proverb which metaphorically maintains that YHWH is unfairly punishing the present generation for the sins of their ancestors. YHWH disputes that and in vv.3-4 states the counter thesis that people suffer because of their own sins (the soul that sinneth, it shall die). The counter thesis is again stated in v.20 but in more detail. The argumentation for the dispute begins at verse 5.

DIVISION

1-4 A False Proverb

5-20 The False Proverb Refuted – Three Practical Examples

  • a) 5-9 A righteous man will surely live
  • b) 10-13 A righteous man’s wicked son will surely die
  • c) 14-17 A wicked man’s righteous son will surely live

21-32 Repentance

A FALSE PROVERB (1-4)

(1) The familiar (some 50 times in Ezekiel) prophetic word formula ‘The word of the Lord came unto me again, saying’ introduces a new section consisting of chapters 18 and 19. The formula claims divine origin for the message and lends it authenticity and authority.

(2) Ezekiel is to draw attention to a popular proverb concerning ‘the land of Israel’ and ask what the people mean by bandying it about. Since Ezekiel is addressing his fellow-exiles it is likely that he means that the proverb is circulating among them in Babylon. We know, however, from the writings of Jeremiah (Jer 31:29; Lam 5:7), that the same proverb was also in use back home in Judah.

The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge. KJV

This proverb expresses the view that children suffer for the sins of their parents or ancestors. It reflects a sense of fatalism and victimhood on the part of the Israelites and a failure to grasp the fact that they themselves are sinful. They blame earlier generations for their current woes and thus do not heed prophetic warnings about the sinfulness of Judah. They have become defensive and seek to deflect responsibility from themselves. In effect they say: ‘It is our fathers who have sinned so why is our homeland under the Babylonian yoke and why are we in exile in Babylon?’ By justifying themselves they proclaim that God is not fair.

(3) Although it is true that the effects of wrongdoing can be felt for several generations thereafter (Exod 20:5) YHWH swears an oath by himself that never again will this illogical and false proverb (that one generation eats sour grapes and a later one has a sour taste in the mouth as a result) be quoted as truth in Israel. The people are to stop saying that their misfortune is inherited. No more sour grapes!

(4) YHWH draws attention (Behold!) to the fact that all souls are his — everyone belongs to him, the son as well as the father. YHWH has the right to punish children as well as parents because everyone is accountable to him — he is not accountable to them. However, he does not do that. He judges every soul (i.e. every person) individually and holds them personally responsible for their own sin. This principle is set out in the Torah (Lev 18:5; Deut 24:16; cf. 2 Kgs 14:6).

Perhaps it ought to be borne in mind that Ezekiel is not dispensing with the idea of national or collective responsibility here but rather expressing it in individualistic terms. Since the nation is made up of individuals it is individuals whom YHWH will personally evaluate.

Righteousness and wickedness are not inherited traits but the result of personal choices. The consequences of an individual’s actions are therefore personal: the soul who sins shall die. Violation of YHWH’s moral and ethical standards will incur the death penalty.

THE FALSE PROVERB REFUTED – THREE PRACTICAL EXAMPLES (5-20)

In these verses YHWH vindicates himself against the accusation that he is unfairly punishing the present generation for the sins of their ancestors. By way of defence and to argue for individual responsibility he uses three case studies. Three scenarios are presented, each about a hypothetical individual. These individuals represent three different generations: a righteous grandfather, a wicked father and a righteous grandson.

A RIGHTEOUS MAN WILL SURELY LIVE (5-9)

Verse 5 begins with the conditional ‘if’—so the argument is presented in case law format. This casuistic legal style is typical of the Holiness Code in Leviticus (chapters 17-26) with which Ezekiel the priest (1:3) was familiar. Notice that he frequently uses the language of Lev 18:4-5 — Ye shall do my judgements, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgements: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.

  • statutes and judgements are mentioned in Ezek 18:9, 17, 19/21. See also Ezek 5:6-7; 11:12, 20; 20:11, 13, 18, 19 , 21, 25; 36:27; 37:24. (N.B. Ezek 20:11 makes it clear that statutes and judgements is a reference to the entire divine revelation at Mt. Sinai.)
  • The verb live occurs in Ezek 18:9, 13, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 32.
  • if a man do, he shall live in them occurs in Ezek 20:11,13, 21.

Lev 18:5 states that if the Israelites adhere to the stipulations of the covenant they will live. Failure to keep them amounts to covenant breaking (Lev 26:15) and will incur punishment in the form of disease, famine, invasion and exile (Lev 26).

Verse 5 continues from ‘if’ with the words: a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right. The first case study is about a just or righteous man. The argument continues to the end of v.9 where the conclusion is that if a man is just, he will surely live. YHWH states that a just man will do that which is ‘lawful and right.’ This phrase is repeated in vv. 19, 21, 27; see also 33:14, 16, 19; 45:9.

Verses 6-9 list the sorts of things that constitute being ‘righteous’ in the sight of YHWH. These requirements are mainly derived from the Holiness Code in Leviticus (chapters 17-26) and echo principles found in the Ten Commandments. A ‘just’ man:

  • does not eat at the mountain shrines – worshipping false gods. see 18:6, 11, 15; 22:9, cf. 20:28. This is addressed in the first and second commandments, Exod 20:3-4.
  • does not lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel. This is addressed in the first and second commandments, Exod 20:3-4. ‘Idols’ is a totally contemptuous term used 38 times in Ezekiel and probably alludes to excrement. It always occurs in the plural and is said to mean ‘dung-gods.’ Found also in 18:12, 15, cf. Deut 4:19.
  • does not defile his neighbour’s wife. Adultery violates the seventh commandment, Exod 20:14, see also Lev 18:20; 20:10; Deut 5:18; 22:22.
  • does not have sexual relations with a menstruating woman. See Lev 15:24; 18:19; 20:18.
  • does not oppress anyone. Lev 19:33; Deut 23:16; Zech 7:10.
  • returns to the debtor his pledge. He gives back what he has received as collateral when someone returns what he had borrowed, Exod 22:26; Deut 24:6, 13.
  • does not rob anyone using violence. Lev 19:13.
  • gives food to those in need. Deut 15:11; 24:19-22; Isa 58:7.
  • gives clothes to those in need. Isa 58:7.
  • does not charge the needy interest (nešek) on loans. Exod 22:25; Lev 25:35-37; Deut 23:19-20;.
  • does not charge the needy increase (tarbiyt) – accrued interest – unjust rates of interest on loans. see Lev 25:35-37.
  • withholds his hand from iniquity in whatever form.
  • judges between individuals impartially. Zech 7:9; 8:16.

Verse 9 sums up a person who lives by these principles as one who observes YHWH’s statutes and judgements and does that which is true (Deut 6:25). On this basis he is legally declared righteous and is therefore allowed to live. This declaration is made by the Lord God.

A RIGHTEOUS MAN’S WICKED SON WILL SURELY DIE (10-13)

The second case study in divine justice concerns a righteous person’s wicked son. Unlike his righteous father (vv.5-9) he turns out to be violent, a robber and commits other sins, something like those previously enumerated in vv.6-8. The wicked son will:

  • eat on the mountains
  • defile his neighbour’s wife
  • oppress the poor and needy
  • not restore the pledge
  • lift up his eyes to idols
  • commit abomination
  • take usury
  • take profit

These sins (vv.11-13) that the wicked man will commit do not exactly match those that his righteous father avoids (vv.6-8) but both lists include similar categories like idolatry, adultery, robbery, usury and oppression of the poor. Notice that v.11 also adds ‘and that doeth not any of those duties.’ This teaches us that sins of omission are every bit as serious in God’s sight as sins of commission.

V.13 asks the question ‘shall he then live? The answer is supplied: ‘he shall surely die’ (suffer the death penalty, cf: Exod 21:12; Lev 20:9, 11,12, 13, 16, 27; Deut 17:6; 21:22). The point is that since the wicked son does things that his righteous father has not done then it cannot be said that the father is at fault because his son has turned out wicked. He will surely die, not because of his father’s sins but because of his own choices. His father’s righteousness will not save him.

A WICKED MAN’S RIGHTEOUS SON WILL SURELY LIVE (14-17)

By way of contrast, the grandson (the next generation) sees his father’s wickedness, takes thought (‘considereth,’ see also v.28), and chooses to be righteous like his grandfather. The crimes that the righteous grandson avoids are listed in vv.15-17a. The list is much the same as that for his grandfather in vv.6-8 but approaching a menstruating woman is left out (see v.6). Verse 17b categorically states that the son will not die for his father’s crimes but will surely live and v.18 repeats (see v.13) that the father would be put to death for his own crimes.

(19-20) These two verses are the climax of YHWH’s argument for the principle of individual responsibility. He anticipates an objection that might be raised by the people about God’s verdict in the third case – that the son has been just so he will live. A righteous person, regardless of his father’s sins, will live but they will say: ‘Why should the son not bear the father’s guilt?’ God/Ezekiel must be mistaken since the people (in their own thinking) are righteous but suffering for the sins of their ancestors.

In v.20 YHWH again states his counter-thesis: The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

The person who sins is the one who is subject to the death penalty. The son will not suffer for the iniquity of the father and the father will not suffer for the iniquity of the son. Each person is judged in accordance with his or her own actions. The righteous person is accounted as righteous and the wicked person as wicked. God’s judgement is not inherited (compare Isa 3:10-11).

The implications of this are: a) God’s judgement is personal, not arbitrary b) each person is judged according to his own actions therefore God is not unjust, and c) since God does not punish innocent people for the sins of others the Israelites cannot blame past generations for their present suffering. Their exile is the result of their own sin.

REPENTANCE (21-32)

YHWH now brings up the topic of repentance and describes two situations.

a) The wicked person’s repentance.

But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live? Ezekiel 18:21-23

The first is that of a wicked person who genuinely decides to give up wrongdoing and instead live a righteous life. Since he abandons his sins and actively follows the ways of YHWH (‘keep my statutes,’ ‘do that which is lawful and right’) he will be treated as righteous and allowed to live. His past transgressions (lit, ‘rebellions’) will not be remembered and he will live (not die a premature physical death).

YHWH asks a rhetorical question in v.23: Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live? The implied answer is ‘No!’ God is not a vengeful deity. Divine judgement is a necessary response to wickedness but not something in which YHWH takes delight. That is why he would allow a wicked person who repents to avoid judgement.

b) The righteous person’s reversal.

Verses 24-29 continue with the case of a righteous person who later chooses to embrace evil. Various phrases are used in v.24 (ESV) to describe this reversal:
– turns away from his righteousness
– does injustice
– does the same abominations that the wicked person does
– treachery of which he is guilty
– the sin he has committed

Verse 24b spells out the consequences. None of his righteous deeds will be remembered and he shall die for his sin. Past obedience does not count as credit against future rebellion. He will be sentenced to death for his crimes.

Verse 25 brings us back to the start of the chapter. Still of the opinion that they are suffering because of the sins of a previous generation Ezekiel’s fellow-exiles claim that YHWH is unfair. ‘Not equal’ means ‘biased.’ The verb means to weigh or be equal and was used in connection with weight and measurement. Addressing the people as a group (‘hear now’ is a plural imperative) God responds to the charge that these decisions are unfair by simply restating what he has already said in vv.21-24 in vv.26-28. Notice the double ‘turn away from’ and ‘to do.’

When a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice, he shall die for it; Ezekiel 18:26 ESV

Again, when a wicked person turns away from the wickedness he has committed and does what is just and right, he shall save his life. Ezekiel 18:27 ESV

(29) In spite of all that the Lord, through Ezekiel, has told them in this oracle the people still maintain that God’s ways are biased. YHWH retorts that it is their ways that are unfair, not his.

(30-32) The chapter concludes with a call to repentance. By arguing that those who repent will live and that those who turn to evil will die YHWH has indicated that the ‘house of Israel’ should accept responsibility for the situation in which they find themselves. He will judge them individually according to their actions so they need to repent and turn away from all their transgressions in order that iniquity will not be their ‘ruin’ (obstacle, stumbling block) i.e. downfall. The imperatives in vv.30-31 are repent, turn away, cast away, make yourselves a new heart… This passage contains one of three references in Ezekiel to ‘a new heart and a new spirit.’

And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them a heart of flesh: Ezekiel 11:19

Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel? Ezekiel 18:31

A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. Ezekiel 36:26

In v.32 YHWH reiterates that he has no pleasure in the death of anyone and his final words are both an invitation and a strong warning: ‘turn and live.’

SUMMATION

In this chapter YHWH, speaking through Ezekiel, highlights the responsibility of the nation for the current disaster. His argument demolishes the fatalistic view implied by the proverb in v.2 (The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge?) that they are suffering for the sins of their ancestors. In fact, each person is accountable to YHWH for his or her own choices and actions. Using case studies of hypothetical righteous and wicked individuals across generations YHWH emphasises that those who repent and pursue justice will live, while those who pursue evil will die, regardless of their past. The chapter ends with a statement of YHWH’s desire that everyone should live and ends with a powerful appeal — ‘turn and live’ —designed to motivate the people to make the right choice and repent.

Posted in Exposition

Ezekiel 17:1-24 The Allegory of Two Eagles and a Vine

Posted on by writtenexposition

Reading: Ezekiel 17:1-24

Background reading:
– King Jehoiachin’s exile to Babylon in 597 BCE, 2 Kgs 24:6-16; 2 Chron 36:9-10.
– Zedekiah’s installation as Nebuchadnezzar’s puppet king and his revolt against Babylonian rule, 2 Kgs 24:17-20; 2 Chron 36:11-16.
– The aftermath of Zedekiah’s revolt, 2 Kgs 25:1-30; 2 Chron 36:11-20.

THE ALLEGORY OF TWO EAGLES AND A VINE

DIVISION

1-10 The Imagery of the Allegory
11-21 The Interpretation of the Allegory
22-24 A Message of Hope

INTRODUCTION

Chapter 17 presents two further visions of Ezekiel in the section (chapters 4-24) that contains oracles of warning about the certainty of YHWH’s judgement upon Judah for crimes such as disobedience, violence, exploitation of the poor, foreign alliances and idolatry.

Already in exile in Babylon, Ezekiel prophesied to the people of Israel/Judah in the years leading up to and just after the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Babylonian forces in 587/6 BCE.

In this chapter Ezekiel addresses the political crisis of the time which was King Zedekiah of Judah’s rebellion against Babylonian rule. This must have occurred about 590 BCE since it prompted Nebuchadnezzar’s siege of Jerusalem that began in Zedekiah’s ninth regnal year, 589/8 BCE (Jer 39:1; 52:4; 2 Kgs 25:1).

THE IMAGERY OF THE ALLEGORY 1-10

(1) Ezekiel 17 begins with the standard prophetic word formula ‘and the word of the Lord came unto me, saying’ which introduces a new revelation. This formula occurs again in v.11.

(2) As usual YHWH emphasises Ezekiel’s mortality by addressing him as ‘son of Adam’ and then issuing a double command: ‘pose a riddle (ḥiyḏāh) and tell an allegory (māšāl) to the house of Israel.’ The idea of a riddle or enigma is that it is difficult to understand whereas an allegory or fable is something that illuminates the understanding. Greenberg (Ezekiel I-XX, 1983, p. 309) comments: ‘While the two terms appear in parallelism (Ps 49:5, 78:2; Prov 1:6) they are not interchangeable (as Judg 14:12ff and 1 Kings 10:1 show )…’

(3) There follows the prophetic messenger formula ‘Thus saith the Lord God’ which cites the origin of the message and claims divine authority (also vv.9, 22).

FIRST GREAT EAGLE

The allegory begins with a great eagle that has powerful wings, long feathers and colourful plumage coming to Lebanon to the top branch of a cedar tree.

Comment – Nešer refers to a large bird of prey and can be translated as either ‘eagle’ or ‘vulture’ depending on the context. Most translations opt for ‘eagle,’ thus emphasising power, speed and dominance. Some scholars reckon that nešer here refers to the Great Griffon Vulture. Translating it thus would emphasise its scavenging behaviour and association with death and desolation.

great wings, long-winged, full of feathers, which had divers colours – a superpower which has widespread domination and influence over many peoples.

Lebanon – to the north of Israel but in the allegory it seems to represent Jerusalem, see v.12.

the highest branch – the aristocracy.

(4-6) Taking off the topmost twig from the highest branch of a cedar tree the eagle carries it to a land of commerce and sets it in a city of merchants. Then it takes a seedling from the ground and plants it in well-irrigated, fertile ground where it grows like a willow tree (a tree that loves water, cf. Isa 44:4). There it grows into ‘a spreading vine of low stature’ which produces branches and shoots and has its roots spread towards the eagle.

COMMENTS – He cropped off the top of his young twigs, carried it into a land of traffic; he set it in a city of merchants. – i.e. deported the king (Jehoiachin) to Babylon. The Babylonians were famous traders (Josh 7:21; Rev 18:10-16).

He took also of the seed of the land – Nebuchadnezzar installed Zedekiah, a native of Judah, as a puppet ruler.

and planted it in a fruitful field; he placed it by great waters, and set it as a willow tree. – Zedekiah and Judah flourished under Babylonian rule – they were dependent upon Babylonia but the conditions for growth were excellent.

great waters – The Euphrates and the Tigris were the rivers of Babylon (cf. Psa 137).

And it grew, and became a spreading vine of low stature, whose branches turned toward him, and the roots thereof were under him: so it became a vine, and brought forth branches, and shot forth sprigs. – As a vassal state Judah was subservient to the Babylonians but was nevertheless thriving.

Vine – Often used for Israel, e.g. Psa 80:8-15; Isa 5:1-7; Jer 2:21; Hos 10:1.

(7) SECOND GREAT EAGLE

A second eagle with great wings and many feathers is introduced and the vine stretches its roots and branches towards this eagle hoping to obtain sustenance from it.

COMMENTS – The second great eagle is not quite as splendid as the first (cp. v.7a with v.3a). It has great wings and many feathers but they are not as long or colourful as those of the first eagle.

The vine tries to shift its loyalty, it stretches out its roots and branches towards the second eagle. Notice that, whereas in vv.3-5 the first great eagle takes the active role and the vine is passive, in v.7 the second great eagle is passive and the vine is active. It reaches out towards second eagle.

(8) The series of infinitives would suggest that v.8 is recapping the advantages the vine has enjoyed and could continue to enjoy (v.6) under the first eagle (it was planted: to bring forth branches, to bear fruit, to become a goodly vine). This emphasises the foolishness of turning towards the second eagle.

(9-10) Again employing the prophetic messenger formula ‘Thus saith the Lord God’ (also vv.3, 22) Ezekiel is told to ask his fellow exiles questions (featuring the words ‘shall it prosper’) and then supply the answers.

Q Shall it prosper? shall he not pull up the roots thereof, and cut off the fruit thereof, that it wither?
A it shall wither in all the leaves of her spring, even without great power or many people to pluck it up by the roots thereof.

Q Yea, behold, being planted, shall it prosper? shall it not utterly wither, when the east wind toucheth it?
A it shall wither in the furrows where it grew.

COMMENTS – these questions and answers are designed to show the utter futility of the vine changing its allegiance. The first eagle will uproot the vine (by applying great force) and cause it to wither (rot).

planted – some translations (e.g. NCB; NLT; RSV; NRSV) prefer ‘transplanted’ as the verb šāṯal  can mean either to plant or to transplant. In Ezek chapter 19 this same word is used of a vine’s first planting and again in v.13 of its second planting (transplanting).

east wind – a destructive hot wind (Job 27:21; Isa 27:8; Ezek 19:12; Hos 13:15).

the furrows (v.7 and v.10) – the River Nile and the irrigation canals that branch off from it.

THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ALLEGORY 11-21

(11-12a) In Ezek 17:11 the standard prophetic word formula ‘the word of the Lord came unto me, saying’ introduces a new revelation that helpfully explains the previous one. Ezekiel is to communicate this to the exiles who are with him in Babylon; here referred to once again as ‘the rebellious house.’ This description occurs 12 times in the book of Ezekiel: 2:5, 6, 8; 3:9, 26, 27; 12:2, 3, 9, 25; 17:12; 24:3.

(12a-21) Explanation:

v.12 Behold, the king of Babylon is come to Jerusalem, and hath taken the king thereof, and the princes thereof, and led them with him to Babylon;

COMMENT – Cp. vv. 3-4. The first great eagle is Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, who in 597 BCE besieged Jerusalem (Lebanon) and carried away the Judean king Jehoiachin, with the aristocracy and the elite of the land, to exile in Babylon (see 2 Kgs 24:10-16).

v.13-14 And hath taken of the king’s seed, and made a covenant with him, and hath taken an oath of him: he hath also taken the mighty of the land: That the kingdom might be base, that it might not lift itself up, but that by keeping of his covenant it might stand.

COMMENT- Cp. vv.5-6. Nebuchadnezzar appointed Zedekiah as his vassal king in Judah (2 Kgs 24:17). As part of this agreement Zedekiah swore an oath of allegiance to Nebuchadnezzar that would also have entailed a commitment to pay an annual tribute to the Babylonians. The Chronicler records that Nebuchadnezzar put him under oath; Zedekiah swore this in the name of YHWH (2 Chron 36:13). If this agreement was honoured Judah would survive and flourish as a Babylonian vassal state, YHWH had confirmed that this would be so in a word addressed to Zedekiah by the prophet Jeremiah (Jer 27:12-15).

vv.15-16 But he rebelled against him in sending his ambassadors into Egypt, that they might give him horses and much people. Shall he prosper? shall he escape that doeth such things? or shall he break the covenant, and be delivered? As I live, saith the Lord GOD, surely in the place where the king dwelleth that made him king, whose oath he despised, and whose covenant he broke, even with him in the midst of Babylon he shall die.

COMMENT – Having decided to revolt against Babylonian rule Zedekiah sent diplomats to Egypt to request military support, which seems to have been forthcoming. Zedekiah then rebelled (2 Kgs 24:20), probably by withholding tribute. This action quickly backfired as Nebuchadnezzar marched on Jerusalem and laid siege to the city.

Echoing v.9 and v.10 YHWH asks ‘Shall he prosper?’ The alliance with Egypt will not work because YHWH is angry that Zedekiah broke the treaty with the Babylonians that was sworn in YHWH’s name. YHWH swears by himself that Zedekiah will die in Babylon.

v.17 Neither shall Pharaoh with his mighty army and great company make for him in the war, by casting up mounts, and building forts, to cut off many persons:

COMMENT – Once the Babylonian siege apparatus is set up (ramps and bulwarks) Pharaoh and his army will be of no use (see Ezekiel’s description of Babylonian siege warfare against Tyre in 26:7-11). Jeremiah 37:4-11 indicates that Pharoah did send an army, causing the Babylonians to break the siege of Jerusalem for a short while in order to repulse that threat.

vv.18-19. Seeing he despised the oath by breaking the covenant, when, lo, he had given his hand, and hath done all these things, he shall not escape. Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; As I live, surely mine oath that he hath despised, and my covenant that he hath broken, even it will I recompense upon his own head.

COMMENT – Zedekiah had ‘given his hand’ (this gesture must have meant ‘I promise’ cf. Ezra 30:8; Lam 5:6).

v.19, which I have shown in bold print, is the key verse in the chapter. It is the whole point of the allegory. Zedekiah swore an oath and made a treaty with a secular ruler, but did not honour its terms because he despised the oath (the word ‘oath’ also means ‘curse’). However, he swore it in YHWH’s name so it has religious significance. It is binding. Notice ‘mine oath’ and ‘my covenant.’ The oath and covenant that Zedekiah made with Nebuchadnezzar is also viewed as YHWH’s oath and covenant. Zedekiah violated that agreement and will suffer the consequences. Notice that YHWH himself makes an oath (‘as I live’) to punish Zedekiah.

v.20 predicts Zedekiah’s capture, exile to Babylon and judgement there for violating his duty and v.21 predicts that his soldiers will be pursued and either slain or dispersed. All this without any mention of Nebuchadnezzar! YHWH is in control. Nebuchadnezzar is his agent. Nebuchadnezzar is his instrument.

The fulfilment of these consequences will prove that YHWH indeed has spoken – ye shall know that I the LORD have spoken it.

A MESSAGE OF HOPE 22-24

The first 21 verses of Ezekiel 17 have been about judgement, the closing verses are about restoration. Utilising the earlier imagery of the chapter Ezekiel predicts the restoration of the Davidic line. Many interpret this passage as messianic.

Again employing the prophetic messenger formula ‘Thus saith the Lord God’ (also vv.3, 9) Ezekiel prophesies that YHWH will act to take a new tender sprig from the top of the high cedar in Babylon and plant it upon a high and eminent mountain in Israel. There it will thrive and become a place of shade and security for ‘all fowl of every wing.’ All the trees of the field will know that that YHWH has spoken this and has brought it about.

No explanation of this metaphor is given but based on the earlier explanation in the chapter where the top of the twigs represented Jehoiachin then this tender twig (from the top of the high cedar tree in Babylon) that YHWH will plant upon a high mountain in Israel refers to a future king of the Davidic line who will reign in Israel/Judah. Mt. Zion springs immediately to mind but ‘high and eminent mountain’ probably refers to this king’s greatness. He will flourish and be a blessing to all kinds of people – or perhaps v.23b (under it shall dwell all fowl of every wing; in the shadow of the branches thereof shall they dwell) implies universal rule. This future Davidic ruler will have worldwide influence and significance (cf. Isa 9:6-7; Jer 23:5-6; Ezek 34:23; 37:24).

Ezekiel may have been hoping for the eventual restoration of King Jehoiachin with whom he was in exile in Babylon. Jehoiachin was released after Nebuchadnezzar’s death in 562 BCE (2 Kgs 25:27-30; Jer 52:3-4) but he was not the fulfilment of the prophecy. Nor was Zerubbabel, a later Governor of Judea under the First Persian Empire, although he was of the Davidic line and his name means ‘seed of Babylon.’

The chapter closes with ‘all the trees of the field’ (i.e. the nations) recognising that it is YHWH who has brought Judah down to nothing and who will restore and exalt the new king. YHWH makes the low high and brings the high low.

PREACTICAL LESSONS FROM EZEKIEL 17

a) The necessity of keeping one’s word. Breaking promises and betraying trust, whether in personal or business relationships or in the political sphere, matters to God. Integrity is important and actions have consequences. Do I honour my commitments, or shift loyalties if it seems more beneficial to do so?

b) The folly of placing dependence upon others rather than God. Zedekiah relied on Egypt’s prowess rather than trust God’s sovereignty. True security lies in trusting God, not others. Am I entangled in worldly alliances?

c) Although we live in uncertain times God is actively working out his purposes in world affairs. No matter how bad a situation seems he is in control. God can reverse national fortunes (bring the high low and make the low high, v.24) and ultimately his plans will prevail.

Posted in Exposition

Ezekiel 16:44-52: The Allegory of Jerusalem and Her Sinful Sisters

Posted on by writtenexposition

INTRODUCTION

In 16:1-43 Ezekiel has YHWH speak a lengthy allegory in which Jerusalem is personified as a woman. YHWH describes how he found her as an abandoned infant. He rescued her and, once she reached ‘the age for love,’ he married her. Abusing the gifts that he had given her, Jerusalem subsequently turned to idolatry and immorality; for which YHWH sentences her to harsh punishment. At this point one would expect a conclusion to the allegory but that does not come until v.60.

The History of a Harlot: Jerusalem’s Early Years – Ezekiel 16:1-14
The History of a Harlot: Jerusalem’s Prostitution – Ezekiel 16:15-34
The History of a Harlot: Jerusalem’s Judgement – Ezekiel 16:35-43

Commentators disagree as to whether the section (16:44-59) is an extension of the allegory of 16:1-43 or a further allegory which, although closely linked with the preceding one, is not a continuation of it. I would contend that it is indeed a new allegory but one which shares the ending with the previous one.

The allegory in vv.1-43, while addressed to Jerusalem, clearly covers the history of Israel as a whole, not just Judah. In this new allegory, however, Judah and Israel are distinct. Jerusalem stands for the southern kingdom of Judah and Samaria represents the northern kingdom of Israel. In this second allegory YHWH compares Jerusalem with her ‘sisters’ Samaria and Sodom and concludes that Jerusalem has turned out much worse than either of them.

THE ALLEGORY OF THE SINFUL SISTERS

(44) Verse 44 begins with the word ‘behold’ which directs the reader’s attention to the new allegory and to the comparison of Jerusalem with Sodom and Samaria (the theme of Samaria and Jerusalem as sisters is developed more fully in chapter 23). YHWH says that everyone who quotes a proverb (cf. Num 21:27) will say of Jerusalem: ‘like mother, like daughter.’ With this short (two words in Hebrew) saying YHWH refers back to v.3 and sarcastically reminds Jerusalem that she has foreign ancestry.

(45-46) In v.3 the Amorite father is mentioned first but here the order is inverted. The Hittite mother is placed first now because this allegory focuses on female family members. Ezekiel is again referring to the Canaanite origins of the city of Jerusalem (Jebusites, Josh 15:63; Judge 1:21). This is by no means a compliment since Hittites and Amorites were two of the seven nations which the Israelites were commanded to drive out of the Promised Land ( Deut 7:1-2; Josh 3:10; 24:11) and with whom they were forbidden to intermarry (Deut 7:3).

Ezekiel paints a picture of a truly dysfunctional family. Jerusalem resembles her Hittite mother because just as her mother had shown contempt for her Amorite husband and their children (3 daughters) so Jerusalem had shown contempt for her husband and children (16:20-21, 31, 32). Her sisters, Samaria and Sodom, had likewise shown contempt for their husbands and daughters.

The husbands are not mentioned again, they don’t really feature in this allegory nor does the mother appear again after v.45. In this section Ezekiel concentrates on two important relationships; sister and daughter.

Daughter – vv. 44, 45, 46(x2), 48 (x2), 49, 53(x2), 55(x3), 57(x2), 61.
Sister – vv. 45(x2), 46(x2), 48, 49, 51, 52(x2), 55, 56, 61.

(46) YHWH begins a quite convoluted negative comparison between Jerusalem and her two sisters in which Samaria is described as the ‘elder’ sister and Sodom as the ‘younger.’ In fact, Jerusalem and Sodom had long histories whereas Samaria was much younger than either of them, having only been established (1 Kgs 16:23-24) by King Omri of Israel (884-873 BCE) almost 300 years before Ezekiel’s time. ‘Elder’ and ‘younger’ only make sense if interpreted in terms of greatness of geographical/territorial size, military power or historical importance. ‘Daughters’ probably refers to dependent satellite towns and villages, or perhaps to the inhabitants of the three cities.

Geographically Jerusalem is situated between the sites of the two cities. As one faces East the city of Samaria is to the left (North) and Sodom to the right (South). Samaria was the former capital of the northern kingdom of Israel and in patriarchal times Sodom had been the most important city of the Jordan valley (Gen 18-19).

(47) Jerusalem was not content with equalling the ways and abominations of Samaria and Sodom but became much more corrupt than they. As if despising their sinful deeds as small scale (‘a very little thing’ or ‘a thing of disgust’) Jerusalem outdid them by sinning on a much grander scale. Ezekiel’s hearers would have been greatly shocked to hear YHWH linking Jerusalem with Sodom and Samaria; cities that were notorious for sin and idolatry.

THE INIQUITY OF SODOM

(48-50) In v.48 YHWH stresses that Judah’s sins outstripped those of Sodom. In the next two verses he elaborates on the greatness of Judah’s guilt compared to that of Sodom. In v.49 YHWH specifies the ‘iniquity’ (guilt from conscious wrongdoing) of Sodom. The sins of Sodom and her daughters (the towns Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboim – Gen 10:19) are enumerated as follows:

Pride – an example of success inflating the ego.

Satiety – because of an over-abundance of food – they were gluttonous.

‘Abundance of idleness’ KJV. – This means careless rest or security. The people of Sodom were so prosperous that they became complacent.

They were indifferent to the poor and needy.

They were ‘haughty’ (arrogant).

They committed abomination (cf. Lev 18:22) in the presence of YHWH (Gen 18:21).

YHWH says that when he saw the iniquity of Sodom and her daughters he removed them. The word ‘good’ is in italics, it is not in the original and has been supplied by translators. Without the word ‘good’ the phrase means ‘when I saw it’.

Ancient writers viewed Sodom as notorious for sexual sin, social injustice, arrogance and hostility towards strangers, for example: Isa 1:9-17; Jeremiah 23:14; 2 Pet 2:6-10; Jude 7; 2 Esdras 2:8-9; 3 Maccabees 2:5; Sirach 16:8; Wisdom of Solomon 19:13-17.

(51-52) YHWH states that Samaria did not sin half as much as Jerusalem. He does not spell out Samaria’s iniquity but Ezekiel’s audience are well aware that it was idolatry. Jerusalem has multiplied the sins of Sodom and Samaria to such an extent that she has ‘justified’ those cities. In other words, Jerusalem’s sins are so evil that she makes Sodom and Samaria look righteous. These two sinful cities had so angered YHWH that he had punished them severely.

Jerusalem, having privileges like the the Law, the Temple and YHWH’s presence, had behaved worse than Sodom and Samaria. She (v.52 ‘thou also’), who had ‘given judgement’ on her sisters (i.e. agreed that their punishment was well-deserved) but had behaved more abominably than they, could therefore expect to suffer a similar fate. It is appropriate that Jerusalem be punished because her sins make the other sisters look righteous.

Many centuries later a similar thought was expressed by Jesus Christ: But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say, Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city. Luke 10:10-12

The next section of Ezekiel chapter 16 will deal with the sisters’ future.

Posted in Exposition

The History of a Harlot: Jerusalem’s Judgement – Ezekiel 16:35-43

Posted on by writtenexposition

INTRODUCTION

My two previous posts (The History of a Harlot: Jerusalem’s Early Years – Ezekiel 16:1-14 and The History of a Harlot: Jerusalem’s Prostitution – Ezekiel 16:15-34) covered the first 34 verses of Ezekiel 16. This chapter consists of a monologue by YHWH which takes the form of an allegory in which he compares Jerusalem to a woman whom he found in a desperate state as an abandoned infant. He rescued, nurtured and cared for her and when he saw that she had matured, married her (entered into a covenant) and made her prosperous and beautiful.

However, she became spiritually unfaithful by prostituting herself with foreign powers and their false deities. She squandered her God-given resources on idolatry and prostituted herself (made alliances) with foreign nations rather than trusting her husband YHWH. She was actually worse than a prostitute because she paid others to corrupt her (i.e. paid tribute to states like Egypt, Assyria and Babylonia) rather than receive payment from them for her services. In the next section of the allegory (vv.35-43) YHWH declares judgement upon Jerusalem for her misdeeds.

JERUSALEM’S JUDGEMENT (35-43)

(35) This section begins with ‘wherefore’ (therefore, on account of, thus, so) which looks back to the accusations of prostitution set out in vv.15-34 and draws attention to what will now be said. YHWH addressing Jerusalem directly as ‘O harlot,’ tells her to ‘hear the word of the Lord.’ He is thus directing the nation to pay attention to his message of judgement.

The word here translated ‘wherefore’ appears many times in the book of Ezekiel to indicate the direct result of what has just been said (causes and consequences): Ezek 5:7; 11:11; 13:8; 15:6; 16:35, 37; 20:27; 21:24; 22:19; 23:35; 24:9; 25:4, 7, 9,13,16; 26:3; 28:6; 29:8; 31:10; 34:7, 9, 20; 35:6.11; 36:3,4, 5, 6,7, 14.

(36) Again the messenger formula ‘thus saith the Lord God’ appears, followed by two announcements of judgement (36-42; 43), each prefaced by ‘because you’ (v.36, 43). Then comes a summary of the reasons for judgement followed by a statement of the consequences.

FIRST ANNOUNCEMENT OF JUDGEMENT

THE REASONS for YHWH’s punishment are listed as;

  • Because thy filthiness was poured out, – The word translated filthiness (KJV, NKJV) means ‘bronze.’ Based on an assumption that neither the ancient Israelites nor the Babylonians used copper as money and that the verb ‘to pour out’ is used in v.15 and in Ezek 23:8 in connection with prostitution many translations (e,g. CSB; ESV; NIV; NLT; NRSV) follow the KJV thought of filthiness and translate ‘bronze’ as ‘lust.’ This idea may have been inspired by the green patina or crust caused by oxidation that forms on brass, bronze and copper. Darby, however, sensibly views ‘bronze’ as a general term for wealth and translates the word as ‘money.’ Payment of tribute in bronze was made to both Assyrians (2 Kgs 16:17-18) and Babylonians (2 Kgs 25:13-14).
  • and thy nakedness discovered through thy whoredoms with thy lovers, – the theme of the naked female body has appeared throughout this allegory and remains the focus of Jerusalem’s punishment (vv.36, 37, 39). ‘Lovers,’ referring to Egypt (v.26), Assyria (v.28) and Babylonia (v.29), occurs in vv. 33, 36 and 37.
  • and with all the idols of thy abominations, – this is the only appearance of the word ‘idols’ in Ezek 16. Here idols are linked with ‘abominations’ (offensive things), this word occurs in vv. 2, 22, 36, 43, 47, 50, 51, 58.
  • and by the blood of thy children, which thou didst give unto them; – a reference to child sacrifice (v.20).

(37-42) THE CONSEQUENCES

Exposure

Having listed Jerusalem’s crimes YHWH now pronounces the penalties. He declares that he will bring together all her former ‘lovers’ i.e. the nations with which Jerusalem had entered into alliances and idolatry. These will turn against her; therefore the ‘gathering’ against Jerusalem symbolises besieging armies. ‘Loved and hated’ reflects Judah’s shifting political relationships with other nations.

Stretching the allegory to its limits, the punishment for Jerusalem is compared to that for adultery.

‘Uncover thy nakedness’ – refers to public disgrace by exposure which formed part of the ancient punishment for being caught in the act of adultery (Isa 47:3; Jer 13:22, 26; Hos 2:3; Nah 3:5). YHWH will expose Jerusalem to the former lovers with whom she had prostituted herself. This public disgrace represents Jerusalem’s downfall that will be witnessed by the surrounding nations.

The ‘lovers’ represent the assembly (‘the men of the city’ Deut 21:21) who carry out the punishment for adultery. This, of course, is not true to real life as, according to the Law, both parties involved in adultery were due the death penalty: If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. Deut 22:22

Death Penalty

(38) YHWH makes it clear that the death penalty pronounced upon Jerusalem is not only for adultery (‘break wedlock’) but also murder (‘shed blood’). The ‘shed blood’ may refer to the child sacrifice mentioned in v.36 or to the violence that was rife in Jerusalem (Jer 2:34; Ezek 7:23). The Law demanded execution for adultery (Lev 20:10), murder (Ex 21:12) and child sacrifice (Lev 20:1-4).

YHWH will enact this severe penalty against Jerusalem ‘in fury and jealousy.’ Fury relates to murder and the jealousy to adultery. This verse contains the final mention of blood in the chapter (see also vv. 6, 9, 22, 36).

Humiliation

(39) YHWH will cause Jerusalem’s former lovers, with whom she had previously sought security, to return her to her original state of vulnerability. Jerusalem’s former enemies will demolish the sites of false worship (mounds and high places) and strip her of YHWH’s gifts (clothes and vessels of glory, see vv.10-13); blessings which she has used unfaithfully (see vv. 16-19). In other words, Judah will lose wealth and status.

Stoning, Cutting to pieces and Burning.

(40-41) The crowd or mob that that will come up against Jerusalem represents the Babylonian army that will attack Jerusalem with stones (flung by war engines) and slay the inhabitants with swords. They will set fire to all the buildings in the city, including the Temple.

Stoning was the usual mode of execution in ancient Israel and was the penalty for a variety of crimes whereas execution by the sword was prescribed for communal idolatry (Deut 13:15). Execution by burning was unusual but did apply for two crimes (Lev 20:14; 21:9).

The term ‘many wives’ (or ‘women’, see vv. 30, 32, 34) probably represents other nations that will look on as YHWH’s public punishment on Jerusalem takes place and to which it will serve as an example. The goal of the punishment is to end Jerusalem’s prostitution, i.e. to bring an end to her idolatry and reliance upon heathen nations. Jerusalem will ‘give payment’ (ESV) no more because Judah will lose its national independence and cease to be a regional power. These verses predict the siege and invasion of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 587/586 BCE.

(42) After the judgement is carried out YHWH’s fury will be appeased and his jealousy will subside. His wrath will be calmed because the matter will have been dealt with. In this verse we have an example of anthropopathism – ascribing human feelings and emotions to something that is not human; in this case deity.

SECOND ANNOUNCEMENT OF JUDGEMENT

As with the first announcement of judgement in vv. 36-42 this second announcement in v.43 restates the motivation for and then the consequences of YHWH’s punishment of Jerusalem.

(43) THE REASONS

Like v.36 this verse begins with ‘because you.’

  • Jerusalem did not remember the days of her youth (cf. v.22), i.e. the nation forgot the Lord’s deliverance and provision during its early history e.g. the Exodus and the making of the Sinai Covenant.
  • Jerusalem enraged YHWH ‘in all these [things].’ This must refer to the examples of prostitution listed from v.15 onwards.

THE CONSEQUENCES

As in v.37 the consequences here in v.43 begin with the words ‘behold, therefore.’

  • YHWH brought her way (deeds) on her head. The idea seems to be that because of her forgetting and her bad behaviour YHWH has held her to account for her ways (perfect tense). This verse views YHWH’s judgement from a future perspective, as having happened in the past. The phrase ‘I will give your [their} way upon your [their] head’ is also found in Ezek 9:10; 11:21; 17:19; 22:31; 33:4.
  • Jerusalem will no longer do licentiousness (engage in prostitution) in addition to all her other detestable practices (abominations). ‘Licentiousness’ (KJV ‘lewdness) and ‘abominations’ together sum up Jerusalem’s sin and are again paired in v.58.

SUMMATION

Using unsettling and violent imagery YHWH, in vv. 35-43, pronounces judgement upon Jerusalem for her infidelity (breach of covenant – Lev 26:16-17, 25, 38; Deut 28:25, 41, 47-58). She will be exposed and shamed before all her former ‘lovers’ and stripped of all the blessings that YHWH has bestowed upon her. YHWH will hand her over to these ‘lovers’ who will carry out divine justice in the form of invasion, destruction and exile.

The metaphor of an adulterous wife is used to show the seriousness of Judah’s spiritual betrayal and the harshness of the punishments in the allegory emphasise that the Lord will not tolerate sin. Idolatry and unfaithfulness are especially serious. As modern readers we might well ask ourselves how often do we turn away from God and chase after things that may be morally or spiritually corrupt. Do we take his kindness and provision for granted and forget that we have a covenant relationship with him?

Posted in General

Avoiding a Fool’s Death: Lessons from Abner’s Demise – 2 Samuel 3:20-34

Posted on by writtenexposition

For the historical background to this blog post please read 2 Samuel 3:20-34

Introduction: Death, an inevitable reality of life, often strikes unexpectedly, leaving behind sorrow and pain. Reflecting on the tragic demise of Abner, we draw lessons from 2 Samuel 3:20-34, and contemplate how we ourselves can avoid a fool’s death.

Facing the Inevitable:

As Hebrews 9:27 reminds us, death is an appointment each of us must keep: ‘it is appointed unto men once to die.’ For believers, however, the focus shifts from mourning the death of the departed to contemplating their eternal destination. We wonder where they are now. Yes, we miss them here – but – what about them?

Finding Hope in the Gospel:

The Gospel offers hope beyond the grave because, as articulated by the Apostle Paul in Romans 1:16, it holds the power to save all who believe. Even in the face of uncertainty regarding the salvation of our departed loved ones, we trust in God’s sovereignty and leave the matter with him.

Contemplating Abner’s Fate:

Abner, a prominent figure in the early chapters of 2 Samuel, met a tragic end which was marked by deception, a poor decision, delay, and ultimately, destruction. His story serves as a cautionary tale for us today.

King David gave the eulogy at Abner’s funeral and in his remarks he asked the mourners the sad but weighty question: ‘Died Abner as a fool dieth?’ This question is rhetorical, the expected answer to it would be: ‘Yes! Indeed he did.’

Lessons from Abner’s Demise:

1. Deception: Abner fell victim to Joab’s deceit, highlighting the danger of succumbing to the enemy’s lies. Similarly, we must remain vigilant against the deceptions of Satan, who seeks to lead us astray.

2. Decision: Abner’s fatal mistake was the choice he made to return to Hebron, demonstrating his lack of discernment. King David said:  ‘Thy hands were not bound, nor thy feet put into fetters: as a man falleth before wicked men, so fellest thou.’ (v.34). Today, by God’s grace, we have a choice. Satan wants to keep us bound hand and foot in the shackles of sin, but Jesus Christ came into the world to free us from the domination of sin and from its eternal consequences. He went to the cross and died as a substitute, bearing the punishment of an offended God on our behalf. He died to provide salvation. We have a decision, a right choice, to make. The wise choice is to trust him for salvation.

3. Delay:

In Old Testament times there was an obligation to avenge the injury or murder of a family member, just as there still is in some cultures today. This activity was governed by what we call the Law of Talion. This comes from the Latin word talis meaning ‘the same as’ or ‘identical’. The idea is that the punishment is meant to equal the crime.

Perhaps this idea is best summed up in the familiar words of Exodus 21:23-25: ‘Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.’

However, not all murder is intentional, such as manslaughter or self-defence, so God in his mercy commanded that 6 of the 48 Levitical towns in the Promised Land be designated Cities of Refuge. Anyone who had committed manslaughter could flee to one of these towns for asylum and be safe from the avenger. Hebron was one of those cities of refuge (Joshua 20:1-9).

Joab met Abner just outside the gate of a city of refuge, took him aside and stabbed him to death. Abner died at the gate of Hebron, just outside the place of refuge. So close! So near and yet so far! Had he gone on through that gate he would have been safe but Abner hesitated at the gate of refuge, a decision that proved very costly. Likewise, we must not delay in seeking shelter in Jesus Christ, the ultimate refuge for our souls.

4. Destruction: Joab’s aim all along was Abner’s destruction, this is mirrored by Satan’s sinister intentions towards humanity. Only through Christ can we find deliverance from such peril.

Conclusion: Death is inevitable, but it need not be a fool’s demise. By embracing the Gospel; avoiding deception, making the wise decision, not delaying in seeking Christ, and thus averting destruction, we can ensure that our legacy is one of faith, not folly. Let us heed the lessons from Abner’s tragic end and choose the path of life in Christ, the only true refuge from the perils of sin and death.

‘For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.‘ John 3:16

Posted in General

Entering Uncharted Territory: Lessons from Joshua for the Year Ahead

Posted on by writtenexposition

READING: Joshua 3:1-7 (NKJV)

1 Then Joshua rose early in the morning; and they set out from Acacia Grove and came to the Jordan, he and all the children of Israel, and lodged there before they crossed over. 2 So it was, after three days, that the officers went through the camp; 3 and they commanded the people, saying, “When you see the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, and the priests, the Levites, bearing it, then you shall set out from your place and go after it. 4 Yet there shall be a space between you and it, about two thousand cubits by measure. Do not come near it, that you may know the way by which you must go, for you have not passed this way before.”
5 And Joshua said to the people, “Sanctify yourselves, for tomorrow the LORD will do wonders among you.” 6 Then Joshua spoke to the priests, saying, “Take up the ark of the covenant and cross over before the people.” So they took up the ark of the covenant and went before the people.
7 And the LORD said to Joshua, “This day I will begin to exalt you in the sight of all Israel, that they may know that, as I was with Moses, so I will be with you.

As we stand on the precipice of a new year, the words from Joshua 3:4 resonate deeply: ‘you have not passed this way before.’ The closing days of 2023 prompt reflection on a year filled with challenges and sorrows for many. Now, with 2024 about to unfold before us, we find ourselves at the threshold of uncharted territory, much like the Israelites preparing to enter the Promised Land.

In Joshua chapter 3, the Israelites, after forty years in the wilderness, were about to cross the River Jordan. This significant crossing marked a transition from the familiar to the unknown, mirroring our own journey into the coming year. Here are some insights from Joshua 3:1-7 that can guide us as we step into the uncharted terrain of 2024:

Relying on God’s Presence

In verse 3, the Israelites are instructed to follow the Ark of the Covenant, representing God’s presence (Exodus 25:22a). To navigate the challenges of the unknown, they must keep their eyes fixed on the Ark. Similarly, in 2024, we need to rely on God’s presence, avoiding the temptation to blindly follow the crowd. Fixing our gaze on the Lord and following where he leads will guide us through unfamiliar situations.

Relying on God’s Power

Joshua’s call to the people to sanctify themselves in verse 5 precedes a promise of wonders from the Lord. The Israelites faced a daunting obstacle – the flooded Jordan River (v.15). Yet, their obedience activated God’s power, parting the waters for their safe passage. As we enter 2024, this reminds us to rely on God’s power to overcome obstacles that may seem insurmountable. Obedient faith can unleash divine wonders in the midst of fear and uncertainty.

Relying on God’s Promise

God’s reassurance to Joshua in verse 7 echoes through time: ‘As I was with Moses, so I will be with you.’ Just as God kept His promises to the saints of old, he remains faithful today. In the unknown terrain of 2024, we can rely on God’s promises. His enduring presence, power, and faithfulness will carry us through whatever challenges and opportunities lie ahead.

As we embark on the uncharted journey of 2024, let us heed the lessons from Joshua 3:1-7. Embrace God’s presence, trust in his power, and hold fast to his promises. The unfamiliarity of the path ahead is an invitation to step out in faith, for, as Joshua 3:4 reminds us, ‘you have not passed this way before.’ Throughout the year ahead may we be guided by God’s grace and marked by a steadfast reliance on him. Happy New Year!

Posted in General

EXPLORING THE ENIGMATIC CHERUBIM IN THE BIBLICAL NARRATIVE

Posted on by writtenexposition

INTRODUCTION

It seems that Cherubim are seldom mentioned in church services these days although occasionally the hymn ‘Holy, Holy, Holy’ by Reginald Heber (cherubim and seraphim, falling down before Thee), or, the Christmas carol ‘In The Bleak Midwinter’ by Christina Rossetti, (Angels and Archangels, May have gathered there, Cherubim and seraphim, Thronged the air) might be sung.

These mysterious and awe-inspiring celestial creatures, however, have fascinated theologians, scholars, and Christian believers for centuries. ‘Cherub’ (singular) or ‘cherubim’ (plural) occur more than ninety times in the Bible. They are mentioned early in Genesis and also in the books of Exodus, Numbers, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, the Psalms and Ezekiel. They appear in connection with the Garden of Eden, the Ark of the Covenant, the Tabernacle and Solomon’s Temple. They are referred to a couple of times in the New Testament; by name in the epistle to the Hebrews and by implication in the Revelation.

The Bible does not provide us with a clear and concise description of the cherubim but they are generally depicted as hybrid winged creatures with multiple faces and multiple bodies/body parts. Nor does the Bible explain their exact roles and functions. Likely there was no need to explain these things to the first readers of the biblical books, to whom they would already have been familiar.

PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE

In the Christian era possibly one of the earliest, and certainly the most influential, student of angelology was Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. Little is known about this scholar who wrote pseudonymously using the name of of Dionysius the Areopagite, a convert of the Apostle Paul following his sermon on the Areopagus (Mars Hill) in Athens (Acts 17:34). Pseudo-Dionysius was probably born in the late fifth or early sixth century C.E. Some speculate that this author might have been a Syrian monk, or that perhaps he was Peter the Iberian (c. 417-491 C.E.), a Christian theologian and Neoplatonist. That Pseudo-Dionysius was a Christian is not even certain but he was definitely a Neoplatonist philosopher.

The earliest reference to the writings (Corpus Areopagitum) of Dionysius the Areopagite is by Severus of Antioch in records of a theological conference held in 532 C.E. Around that same time John of Scythopolis wrote a commentary on Pseudo-Dionysius’ works. As well as ten letters Dionysius’ writings include treatises on ‘The Divine Nature’, ‘The Mystical Theology’, ‘The Celestial Hierarchy’, and the ‘Ecclesiastical Hierarchy’.

As the blurb to Wear and Dillon’s book ‘Dionysius The Areopagite And The Neoplatonist Tradition’ explains:

Dionysius manipulates a Platonic metaphysics to describe a hierarchical universe: as with the Hellenic Platonists, he arranges the celestial and material cosmos into a series of triadic strata. These strata emanate from one unified being and contain beings that range from superior to inferior, depending on their proximity to God. Not only do all things in the hierarchy participate in God, but also all things are inter-connected, so that the lower hierarchies fully participate in the higher ones. This metaphysics lends itself to a sacramental system similar to that of the Hellenic ritual, theurgy. Theurgy allows humans to reach the divine by examining the divine as it exists in creation.

For the topic of Cherubim the treatise which is of interest is that on celestial hierarchy. The concept of ‘hierarchy’ is an important and influential contribution by Dionysius to the discussion about God, about how he has ordered his creation, how extends himself in love to his creation and how his creation reaches back to, and becomes one, with him. Dionysius proposed that the means by which this is accomplished is that of hierarchy. The hierarchy is one of spiritual enlightenment, with those higher up (superior) best able to receive the divine light. Each order in the hierarchy functions as a messenger for the one above it and out of love passes the divine light down through the ranks, diluted according to the ability of each to receive it. Using categories from the Bible (Gen. 3:24; Isa. 6:2; Rom. 8:38; Eph. 1:21; Col. 1:16 ) Pseudo-Dionysius proposed a hierarchy of angels consisting of three ranks of three orders:

First rank (highest): SERAPHIM, CHERUBIM, THRONES

Second rank (middle): DOMINIONS, POWERS, AUTHORITIES

Third rank (lower): PRINCIPALITIES, ARCHANGELS, ANGELS

Pseudo-Dionysius was the first to systematise the hierarchy of immortal, inherently good, spiritual energies that control the celestial spheres and carry out the divine will. His views helped spark an interest in the study of the doctrine of angels (angelology) that has continued through the centuries and into modern times (for example; ‘Catechesis on the Angels’ by Pope John Paul II and ‘Angels: God’s Secret Agents’ by Billy Graham). Even today the ‘Celestial Hierarchy’ usually forms the basis of serious discussion on the ranking of the ‘choirs’ (categories) of angels.

EXPLORING THE ENIGMATIC CHERUBIM IN THE BIBLICAL NARRATIVE

I intend to embark on a journey to understand something of the multifaceted nature of cherubim in the biblical narrative and propose delving into their appearances in the sacred texts to discover what, if anything, is said or implied about their roles, functions and symbolism.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

Coakley, S. and Stang, C.M. (2011). Re-thinking Dionysius the Areopagite. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

Graham, B. (2011). Angels: God’s Secret Agents, Thomas Nelson.

Ivanović, F. (2011). Dionysius the Areopagite between Orthodoxy and Heresy. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Wear, S. K. and Dillon, J. (2013). Dionysius the Areopagite and the Neoplatonist Tradition. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.

WEBSITES

esoteric.msu.edu. (2000) Dionysius the Areopagite: Celestial Hierarchy. [online] Available at: https://esoteric.msu.edu/VolumeII/CelestialHierarchy.html [Accessed 13 Oct. 2023].

Posted in Exposition

NEHEMIAH 13:15-31

Posted on by writtenexposition

13:15-22 RESTORATION OF SABBATH OBSERVANCE

Nehemiah finds that in his absence (‘in those days’) some in Judah have not been observing the Sabbath, but engaging in trade and commerce on the holy day. The offenders listed were involved in the main industry – agriculture – and included wine makers, farmers, fruit growers and haulage operatives. The word translated ‘sheaves’ means ‘heaps’ and need not be restricted to grain. As well as violating the command not to work, the loading and transportation of goods by donkey into Jerusalem also transgressed the concept of no (or very limited) travel on the Sabbath (Ex 16:29; Acts 1:12). Sabbath observance is prescribed in the one of the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:8-11; 31:12-17) and was viewed by Isaiah (56:1-8) as something that results in blessing. The prophets Jeremiah (17:19-27), Ezekiel (20:12-24) and Amos (8:4-5) identified profanation of the Sabbath as a cause of the woes that befell the Israelites; because they had became just like the heathens around them.

Nehemiah also observes that merchants from Tyre who had set up a trading colony in Jerusalem were selling fish and all kinds of wares to the local people on the Sabbath.

THE PHOENICIAN PORT OF TYRE

Tyre was an important port for the Phoenicians, a nation famous in ancient times for seafaring and commerce. Just as the Arabs with their camel trains dominated the transportation of goods over land so the Phoenician merchant navy dominated the shipping routes; conveying goods to and from the three continents (Africa, Asia and Europe) bordering the Mediterranean. They carried not only seawater fish from the Mediterranean and freshwater fish from the Nile but also an abundance of other foodstuffs, exported in cylindrical clay jars. These included: fish paste, pine nuts, olives, olive oil, wine, honey and grain. They shipped luxury goods like furniture, metal tableware (e.g. decorated bowls, candelabra), purple dye, and carved ivories, and were also experts in the delivery of bulk timber by sea (1 Kgs 5:9; 1 Chron 22:4; 2 Chron 2:3-16; Ezra 3:7). The prowess of the Phoenicians (Tyre and Sidon) as merchants and human traffickers is acknowledged by the Old Testament Hebrew prophets (Isa 23:1-8, 17-18; Ezekiel 27:1-36; 28:1-5; Joel 3:4-7; Amos 1:9). Ezekiel chapter 27 is of special historical interest because it not only gives a list of commodities traded by the Tyrians but also details the many and widespread locations where they did business.

NEHEMIAH PROMOTES SABBATH OBSERVANCE

Nehemiah confronts the Judaean nobles and accuses them of profaning the Sabbath (for this expression see: Neh 13:17, 18; Ezek 20:16, 21, 24, ; 22:8; 23:38) and adding to God’s wrath against them. He warns them about God’s punishment (13:18). He then institutes practical measures to enforce Sabbath observance and ensure the sanctity of the day.

  • Nehemiah closes the gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath and initially has his servants guard them so that no burden could be carried into the city.
  • Some of the merchants camp outside the city gates so that the locals can go out and buy from them. Nehemiah tells them to leave or face forcible removal. They leave.
  • Nehemiah then hands over responsibility for guarding to gates to the Levites, after they purify themselves for the Sabbath.

13:22 Nehemiah again asks God to take note of his actions and ‘spare’ (have compassion on) him.

13:23-29 PROBLEM OF EXOGAMOUS MARRIAGES

Upon his return from Persia Nehemiah discovers that in his absence an old issue has resurfaced. Some Israelite men have married foreign women, contrary to God’s law (Deut 23:3-6)and the covenant that had been signed in chapter ten. One of the points of that covenant was the cessation of exogamous marriage (10:30). Nehemiah cites two specific examples of the problem.

1) Half the children spoke (Aramaic?) in a foreign dialect and could not speak ‘the language of the Jews’ i.e. Hebrew. Nehemiah could easily distinguish between the speech of children of Ashdodite mothers and that of children from all Jewish households. He was concerned about ungodly foreign cultural influence and was also very much aware that Jewish national identity was bound up with the worship of God. Since Hebrew was the language of the Jewish religion children who did not speak it could not be taught or understand the scriptures. Men who had married foreign wives were not only neglecting the Hebrew language, they were jeopardizing the purity of the Jewish religion.

Nehemiah therefore takes the offenders to court and challenges their actions. He calls down the curses of the broken covenant upon them, subjects them to a public shaming ritual (see Isa 50:6) and makes them take an oath once again not to marry their children off to foreigners. The reason (vv. 26-27) given for this is the sin of Solomon. In spite of the fact that God loved him (2 Sam 12:24-25) and made him king over all Israel (1 Kgs 4:1) Solomon entered into diplomatic marriages with foreign wives (1 Kgs 11:1-10; 2 Chron 8:11) who led him away from the true worship of Yahweh.

2) Jehoiada, son or grandson of the High Priest Eliashib, had married the daughter of Sanballat the Horonite, who was an enemy of Nehemiah (2:19; 4:1-2, 7; 6:1-9, 14) and a pagan. In the regulations recorded in Lev 21:10-15 the high priest was required to ‘take a virgin of his own people to wife’. In practical terms this prohibition against marrying a foreign wife probably extended to the sons and grandsons of a high priest since they could possibly become high priest in the future. Nehemiah expelled Jehoiada from Judea.

Nehemiah’s prayer at the end of this section (v29) is not about himself but he instead directs his prayer against the high priestly family who, because of intermarriage, had set a bad example to the people, defiled the priesthood and broken the covenant of 10:29-30.

13:30-31 SUMMARY OF NEHEMIAH’S CULTIC REFORMS

Nehemiah ends his memoir by summarizing his main achievements. He lists these as action taken against foreign marriages (10:30; 13:23ff), reorganisation of the temple duties of the priests and Levites (10:37-39; 12:44-47; 13:12-13), the institution of a wood offering (10:34) and the revival/rescheduling of the firstfruits offering (10:35-37).

SUMMATION

Nehemiah chapter thirteen emphasizes the need for continual vigilance in upholding God’s standards and reminds us that spiritual renewal is an ongoing process. The chapter underscores the importance of maintaining purity, honouring the Lord’s demands, and the people of God keeping separate from unholy influences. In spite of Nehemiah’s accomplishments chapter thirteen ends on a somewhat negative note. Sadly, the Israelites do not seem to have shared Nehemiah’s enthusiasm for the things of God. They yielded to secular and religious pressure from outside their community and, despite pledging ‘to walk in God’s law’ (10:29), they abandoned their commitments concerning intermarriage (10:30), Sabbath observance (10:31), and support of the Temple service (10:37-39) soon after Nehemiah left for Persia.

Chapter thirteen records Nehemiah’s final efforts to restore Jerusalem’s spiritual and moral fabric, and provides us with valuable examples of active leadership, faithfulness, and a timely warning about the possibility of departure from the will of God.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

Carson, D.A. (2018). NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible : Follow God’s Redemptive Plan as it Unfolds Throughout Scripture [Previously published as NIV Zondervan Study Bible]. Grand Rapids, Mi: Zondervan.

Grabbe, L.L. (2012). An introduction to Second Temple Judaism : History and Religion of the Jews in the time of Nehemiah, the Maccabees, Hillel and Jesus. London Bloomsbury.

Knut Larson, Anders, M. and Dahlen, K. (2005). Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. Nashville, Tenn. Broadman & Holman C.

López-Ruiz C. and Doak, B.R. (2019). The Oxford Handbook of the Phoenician and Punic Mediterranean. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Ruckman, P.S. (2004). The Books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. (The Bible Believer’s Commentary Series).

JOURNAL ARTICLES

Berlin, A.M. (1997). From Monarchy to Markets: The Phoenicians in Hellenistic Palestine. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 306, pp.75–88. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/1357550.

Master, D.M. (2014). Economy and Exchange in the Iron Age Kingdoms of the Southern Levant. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 372, pp.81–97. doi:https://doi.org/10.5615/bullamerschoorie.372.0081.

Noonan, B.J. (2011). Did Nehemiah Own Tyrian Goods? Trade between Judea and Phoenicia during the Achaemenid Period. Journal of Biblical Literature, 130(2), pp.281–298. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/41304201.

Nehemiah 13:1-3

Nehemiah 13:4-14

Posted in Exposition

NEHEMIAH 13:4-14

Posted on by writtenexposition

13:4-9 EXPULSION OF TOBIAH FROM THE TEMPLE

The main problem Nehemiah addresses in this section is the fact that Eliashib the priest had allowed Tobiah the Ammonite, a non-Jew, to occupy a spacious ‘room’ in the temple. Some suggest that Tobiah may have used the space for commercial purposes since in 13:5 the word liškāh (translated ‘room’ or ‘chamber’) often means storeroom (1 Chron. 9:26; 2 Chron. 31:11; Ezra 8:29; Neh. 10:38-39), but 13:7 uses the word nišḵāh, which refers to living quarters.

ELIASHIB

This ‘Eliashib the priest’ is probably the same Eliashib who was High Priest at that time (3:1, 20-21; 12:10, 22; 13:28) and would certainly have had the authority provide this space to Tobiah. He had participated in the building of the walls (3:1) but thereafter continued to associate with (‘allied’ = ‘close to’ v.4b) Nehemiah’s enemy Tobiah, especially while Nehemiah was away from Jerusalem. Sometimes ‘the priest’ is shorthand for ‘High Priest’, for example: Zadok (1 Kgs 1:8, 26, 32, 34, 38, 39, 44, 45; 2:35; 4;2 ,4) and Joshua in Ezra chapter 3, cp. Zech 6:11).

TOBIAH

Tobiah first appears in 2:10 where he is mentioned as one of the local dignitaries unhappy that Nehemiah had come ‘to seek the welfare of the people of Israel’. He and his friends mocked Nehemiah’s work on the walls, saying that the walls would be so weak that even a fox could knock them down (4:3). Tobiah, however, seems to have established close links with local Israelite officials, including members of the priesthood. This he partly achieved through marriage alliances with prominent Israelite families:

‘Moreover in those days the nobles of Judah sent many letters unto Tobiah, and the letters of Tobiah came unto them. For there were many in Judah sworn unto him, because he was the son in law of Shechaniah the son of Arah; and his son Johanan had taken the daughter of Meshullam the son of Berechiah (see 3:30). Also they reported his good deeds before me, and uttered my words to him. And Tobiah sent letters to put me in fear’ Neh 6:17-19

The provision by Eliashib the priest of a large ‘room’ in the temple for use by Tobiah (13:5) was a serious violation of the law as Deut 23:3-6 prohibited non-Jews from entering the temple or participating in its worship. It would seem that little has changed since then; even today some religious leaders still think that they are above God’s laws.

The room allocated to Tobiah was in an area of the temple which had been designated for the storage of paraphernalia relating to worship (12:44,) such as:

  • Grain offering
  • Frankincense
  • Vessels
  • Agricultural tithes (corn, new wine, oil).

The people had previously committed themselves in writing to provide the above items and store them in the Temple (9:38; 10:38-39). These goods were for the support of temple staff: the Levites, the singers, the porters and the priests. Although the items had been sanctified (12:47), Eliashib the priest had removed them from the storage area in order to accommodate Tobiah. This was a deliberate act of desecration.

Nehemiah emphasizes that he was out of the country (because he had returned to report to the king in Persia) when this happened and did not therefore become aware of it until he returned to Jerusalem (13:6-7). Neither Eliashib nor Tobiah may have expected Nehemiah to return so soon.

Nehemiah was furious when he heard of the arrangement and took immediate action to correct the problem. Determined to restore the temple to its proper state he used his power as Persian governor to overrule this poor decision by the temple authorities. He summarily removed Tobiah’s furniture and belongings (13:8) and had the area purified (13:8-9) and restocked.

13:10-14 REORGANISATION OF THE LEVITES

Nehemiah learns that the giving of tithes had ceased during his period of absence with the result that the Levites and the singers, who were responsible for conducting the temple services (‘that did the work’ KJV), had not received their portions of tithes and offerings.

The Torah envisaged that the tribe of Levi would be supported by the other tribes by means of the tithe (Num 18:21-24; Deut 14:27-28). The apostle Paul directly references this Old Testament system and applies its principles to the support of Christian workers in the New Testament era:

Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. 1 Cor 9:13-14

The Levites had therefore left their duties (13:10, ‘fled’ i.e. the situation was forced upon them) and returned to their fields in order to support themselves financially; thus severely disrupting the worship of Yahweh. The passage may imply that this state of affairs was brought about by Tobiah’s occupation of the storage unit.

In theory the Levites ought not to have had pastureland other than that surrounding towns that had been allocated to them by the Lord (a list of the ‘Levitical cities’ is recorded in Josh 21:1-41 and in 1 Chron 6:54-81). It would seem, however, that in Nehemiah’s day Levites lived and farmed in various additional locations throughout the territory of Judah (7:72; 11:20; 12:27).

Since the ruling class in Judah had neglected their responsibilities with regards to the financial support of the Temple personnel, Nehemiah, as Persian governor, conducted a court case against them (13:11a) and accused them of forsaking the house of God, i.e. of breaking the covenant they made in 10:29ff. The word translated as ‘rebuke’ (5:7) and ‘contend’ (13:11,17, 25) in KJV means ‘to conduct a lawsuit or legal case’.

Nehemiah then gathered ‘them’ (the Levites and singers, not the rulers) together and got them back to their work in the temple. With the temple service revived the people of Judah responded positively. Soon the tithes were given and collected and proper distribution of the provisions restored. Nehemiah seized the opportunity to reorganise the Levites (13:13). No longer would responsibility for looking after the temple storerooms and distribution of support for the Levites be controlled by one man who, like Eliashib, might prove unreliable. Instead, Nehemiah assigned these tasks to a panel of three officials, Shelemiah, Zadok and Pedaiah. Hanan the son of of Zaccur, the son of Mattaniah was appointed to assist them. All of these committee members were honest and trustworthy men who, it appears, acted on behalf of the main parties which had an interest in the smooth operation of the system of tithing.

Shelemiah was a priest.

Pedaiah was a Levite (cp 3:25).

Hanan, presumably, was a singer. He was a grandson of Mattaniah who was the Temple choirmaster (11:17, 22; 12:8, 25).

Zadok the Scribe would have represented the interest of the Persian government.

13:14 – Throughout this chapter Nehemiah finishes his account of each reform with a short prayer (13:14, 22, 31). Here he asks God not to blot out the good deeds he had so loyally and faithfully performed for the temple of God and its services.

In this prayer Nehemiah uses the metaphor of God maintaining a ledger. The idea occurs several times throughout scripture, for example: Psa 56:8; 139:16; Isa 65:6; Dan 7:9-10; Mal 3:16; Rev 20:12; 21:27.

Nehemiah 13:1-3

Nehemiah 13:15-31

Posted in General

WHO WAS ZADOK THE PRIEST?

Posted on by writtenexposition

INTRODUCTION

The term ‘Zadok the Priest’ usually brings to mind a piece of music composed by George Frideric Handel in 1727 and first performed during the coronation of King George II and Queen Caroline of England on 11th October of that year. Since then this iconic anthem has been sung at the coronation of every British monarch (with the exception of Edward VIII who abdicated the throne before the date set for his coronation) and was therefore played during the coronation of King Charles III and Queen Camilla.

‘Zadok the Priest, and Nathan the Prophet anointed Solomon King.
And all the people rejoiced, and said:
God save the King! Long live the King!
May the King live for ever,
Amen, Alleluia.’

The biblical passage 1 Kings 1:38-48 is the inspiration for those words of the anthem:

So, what does the Bible tell us about Zadok?

THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF ZADOK’S STORY

Zadok was a priest in the time of King David and King Solomon who ruled over the ancient kingdom of Israel; David being the second king and Solomon his son and successor. David is believed to have become king around 1010 BCE, while Solomon reigned c. 970 – 930 BCE. David established Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and united the Israelite tribes into a single kingdom, Solomon was known for his wisdom, for building the first Temple in Jerusalem, and for expanding Israel’s trade and influence. Zadok is famous for anointing Solomon as king.

ZADOK’S GENEALOGY

In 1 Chronicles 6:3-8 and 6:50-53, Zadok is listed as a descendant of Eleazar, Aaron’s third son. In 1 Chronicles 24:3, Zadok is again listed as a descendant of Eleazar. This genealogy stretching back to Aaron demonstrates that Zadok was of the priestly family descended from Aaron (the brother of Moses). He was therefore a member of the Aaronic priesthood.

ZADOK’S LOYALTY TO KING DAVID

Almost nothing is known about Zadok’s early life but it seems that he may have belonged to a family of warrior priests. We learn that David was proclaimed king of Judah after the death of King Saul and established his capital in Hebron (2 Sam 2:1-4) where he reigned over Judah for seven and a half years before being acclaimed as king over all Israel (2 Sam 5:1-5). 1 Chronicles chapter 12 records that thousands from Israel defected to David at Hebron and in the census list of armed contingents that came over to David there is a reference (vv. 27-28) to ‘Zadok, a young man of valour.’

The young Zadok supported David’s cause and appears to have been rewarded for his loyalty. Once David firmly established the united monarchy he appointed Zadok and Abiathar as co-priests (2 Sam 8:17; 20:25) in Jerusalem; likely as keepers of the Ark of Covenant which had been transported there and housed in a tented shrine (2 Sam 6:1-17; 7:2; 1 Kgs 2:26; 1 Chron 16:39-40). In David’s administration Zadok also served as chief officer of the Aaronites (1 Chron 27:17) and he worked closely with another priestly colleague called Ahimelech in the organisation of the rotating courses of the priests for religious service (1 Chron 18:16; 24:3, 6, 31).

Later Zadok again aligned himself with the king when David’s son Absalom rebelled. Since it seemed likely that Absalom’s conspiracy to usurp the throne would succeed David decided to flee Jerusalem. Zadok, Abiathar and a group of Levites left the city with him, taking the Ark of the Covenant as well. David, however, convinced that Jerusalem was the place where the ark ought to be, asked them to take it back. The two priests did so and, along with their two sons, remained there as secret agents. They kept David informed of events in the city (2 Sam. 15:13-36; 17:15-22). After Absalom’s rebellion failed David sent Zadok and Abiathar as emissaries to the elders of Judah in order to win back their support and negotiate his return to Jerusalem. Their mission was successful (2 Sam 19:11-15).

ZADOK’S INVOLVEMENT IN THE ANOINTING OF KING SOLOMON

Zadok once again demonstrated his loyalty to King David in the matter of Adonijah’s failed rebellion. Adonijah was the fourth son of King David, born in Hebron (2 Sam 3:4). He attempted to seize the throne while his father was still alive. The events surrounding Adonijah’s revolt are described in 1 Kings 1:5-53. Since David had grown old and infirm, Adonijah saw himself as the heir apparent and arranged to hold a grand feast at which he intended to proclaim himself king, and to which he invited many of David’s officials and supporters; but did not include others whom he knew would be loyal to David. The latter included Solomon, Nathan the prophet and Zadok the priest. Adonijah had the support of Joab, the commander of David’s army, and Abiathar the priest (for Abiathar’s part in the insurrection Solomon later dismissed him from his position as priest, 1 Kgs 2:26-27).

The prophet Nathan and Bathsheba, Solomon’s mother, brought the matter of Adonijah to David’s attention. He immediately took action to ensure that Solomon would be his successor. David instructed Nathan the prophet and Zadok the priest to proclaim Solomon as king (1 Kgs 1:34) and ride him on David’s own mule to the Gihon spring, where he would be officially anointed king over Israel.

So Zadok the priest, and Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and the Cherethites, and the Pelethites, went down, and caused Solomon to ride upon king David’s mule, and brought him to Gihon.
And Zadok the priest took a horn of oil out of the tabernacle, and anointed Solomon. And they blew the trumpet; and all the people said, God save king Solomon. 1 Kgs 1:38-39

This was done, and the people rejoiced, while Adonijah’s followers fled in fear. Thus David settled the succession question by appointing Solomon co-regent. Father and son ruled together until David’s death. Solomon was later anointed as king a second time; along with him Zadok was anointed to be (chief) priest (1 Chron 29:22), possibly serving for a time at Solomon’s temple.

SOME LESSONS FROM THE LIFE OF ZADOK

Be loyal to God and to your leaders. Zadok was loyal to God and to King David. Even when David made mistakes, Zadok remained faithful. This is a valuable lesson for us to learn, it is important to be loyal to those in authority, even when they make mistakes.

Be a person of action. Zadok was a man of action. He was willing to stand up for what he believed in, even when it was difficult to do so. We ought to be willing to stand up for what we believe in, even when that involves personal cost.

Be a person of integrity. Zadok was a man of integrity. He was honest, trustworthy. and was doubtless a great example to his children. David described Zadok’s son Ahimaaz as ‘a good man’ (2 Sam 18:27) – he may have been the same Ahimaaz who married Solomon’s daughter Basmath (1 Kgs 4:15). Another of Zadok’s sons (or perhaps a grandson? 1 Chron 6:8-9), Azariah, was one of the top officials in Solomon’s administration (1 Kgs 4:2).

Zadok was a priest who faithfully served God and the king. He made sound choices in life and was able to play an important role in the history of Israel. He is therefore an example for us to follow.

Posted in Latin loanwords

PRAETORIUM

Posted on by writtenexposition

PRAETORIUM

‘And the soldiers led him away into the hall, called Praetorium; and they call together the whole band.’ Mk 15:16

Greek: (πραιτώριον) praitṓrion

Latin: praetorium

English translation KJV: praetorium (Mk 15:16); common hall (Mt 27:27); hall of judgement (Jn 18:28a); judgement hall (Jn 18:28b, 33; 19:9; Acts 23:35); palace (Phil 1:13)

At Easter Christians recall the Passion (suffering) of Jesus Christ. This refers to the events of the last week of his life and includes his agony and arrest at Gethsemane, his religious and political trials, crucifixion, death, and burial. The four New Testament gospels have passion narratives but, since they each have their own emphasis, all do not include the same information. Only Luke, for example, tells us that Pilate adjourned the trial for a while and sent Jesus to Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, who was in Jerusalem for the Passover at the time (Lk 23:6-12). The Fourth Gospel has the most dramatic detail of all; John sets the Passion in five locations:

A GARDEN (we know from Mt 26:36 and Mk 14:32 that the place was called Gethsemane) Jn 18:1-11

THE HOUSE OF ANNAS (the High Priest Caiaphas’s father-in-law) Jn 18:12-27

PILATE’S PRAETORIUM Jn 18:28-19:16

GOLGOTHA Jn 19:17-37

A GARDEN WITH A NEW TOMB Jn 19:38-42

The central location is Pontius Pilate’s praetorium at Jerusalem. Originally a ‘praetorium’ was the large tent of a praetor (a Roman military commander). This tent was the portable headquarters of an army in the field and within it was situated a platform on which was located a seat upon which the commander sat in order to administer justice and army discipline. The Praetorium was also used for councils of war. Gradually, as the Romans annexed conquered territories and installed either procurators or prefects (civil or military governors) in the Provinces, the term came to be applied to buildings which were official residences of the provincial governors.

The place where Jesus was tried by Pilate is called a ‘praitṓrion’ in the gospels of Matthew, Mark and John. This is a Latin loanword (praetorium) transliterated into Greek as πραιτώριον. Generally speaking, the Roman governors took up residence in the home of the displaced native ruler. The procurators of Judaea, although based in Caesarea, often moved temporarily to Jerusalem during Jewish festivals, to ensure the maintenance of law and order. The gospels do not identify the building or the location of Pilate’s residence there but, since it was on a hill (Mk 15:8 ‘ the crowd ‘came up’ to Pilate NIV, ESV, NASB) and inside the city walls (Mk 15:20 ‘led out’), the most likely building was the former palace of Herod the Great, which had been built on the west hill of Jerusalem in 25 BCE.

It was a large complex which included domestic wings, a famous ornamental garden and military barracks. If this was indeed the building then in front of it was a square called the Lithóstrōtos (pavement) and the Gabbatha (platform) in Jn 19:13. These were two different names, one Greek and one Aramaic, for the same place. The Greek name referred to the stone pavement and the Aramaic name to the platform which was also there; upon which stood the bḗma, Pilate’s judgement seat.

Herod’s son, the ethnarch Archelaus, had occupied the palace until he was deposed and exiled by the emperor Augustus in 6 CE, at which time his territories were annexed by the Romans to form the Province of Judaea. The building thus became available for use by the governors of the new province whenever they resided for short periods in Jerusalem. Their usual residence and the civic and military headquarters were located in Caesarea Maritima. We know from Acts 23:35 that a later Roman procurator, Marcus Antonius Felix (52 -60 CE), lived in Herod’s palace in Caesarea and that it too was known as a ‘praitṓrion.’

In the early morning (18:28a) Jesus was taken from the High Priest Caiaphas to the praetorium where Pilate was already up and at work. Pontius Pilate was the fifth governor of the Roman Province of Judaea, and held office for about ten years (26-36 CE). His predecessors were Coponius (6-9 CE); Marcus Ambibulus (9-12 CE), Annius Rufus (12-15 CE) and Valerius Gratus (15-26 CE). Pilate is mentioned in the New Testament but there is also good historical evidence for him in the writings of non-Christians such as Philo, Josephus and Tacitus. These authors are generally hostile towards Pilate but he must have been a competent administrator to have survived so long in the job.

Pilate has for many centuries been known as a Procurator of Judaea but the find of the Pilate Stone /Pilate Inscription in Caesarea Maritima in 1961 confirmed that his exact title was ‘Prefect’. A Procurator’s responsibilities were mainly civil (financial and administrative) but a Prefect was usually a military man and had additional powers. As a Prefect Pilate was the highest judge in Judaea and held the ius gladii (right of the sword), the authority to administer capital punishment without first consulting his immediate boss, the Legate of Syria, or the Roman emperor.

Pontius Pilate despised the Jews, which may have been why he was appointed to office in Judaea by the Supreme Prefect, Lucius Aelius Seianus, who actively pursued anti-Jewish policies in Rome. Pilate had several major conflicts with the Jews during his time in office. These included incidents involving: army flags, banners and insignia with the Emperor’s picture on them; the setting up of votive tablets to Tiberius in Herod’s palace in Jerusalem; the use of ‘corban’ funds from the Temple to finance construction of a new aquaduct for Jerusalem; the murder of a group of Galileans as they offered sacrifice in the Temple (Lk 13:1-2); and the slaughter of a crowd of Samaritans who had gathered at Mt. Gerizim hoping to witness a miracle.

Pilate’s treatment of the population during these incidents was excessively brutal and he lost his job in 36 CE as a result of the Samaritan affair. His superior, Lucius Vitellius, the governor of Syria, ordered him to Rome to account for his actions. Fortunately for Pilate, he arrived in Rome just after the death of Tiberius in 37 CE and there is no record of any action having been taken against him by the new emperor, Caligula. Later traditions say that he committed suicide, was executed or became an active Christian. A wealthy member of the Pontii family, it is more likely that he lived out the remainder of his life in retirement.

Pilate must have had his suspicions when approached by the Chief Priests with the rather odd request that he put to death a young, popular, Jewish rabbi called Jesus. The religious leaders, who had no love for the Romans, claimed to be acting out of loyalty to Rome by asking for Jesus’ execution for a political, rather than a religious, offence.

Pilate would have controlled a sophisticated network of spies in Judaea and have known that Jesus was not a political agitator. On the other hand, he was responsible for maintaining law and order in the province and Jerusalem was especially volatile at Passover time, when the Jews celebrated a release from bondage to the Egyptians. Someone claiming to be ‘King of the Jews’ was potentially troublesome and certainly a threat to Roman imperial interests. This matter had to be dealt with. The trial of Jesus by Pilate at the Jerusalem praetorium is recorded in all four gospels (Mt 27:11-31; Mk 15:2-20; Lk 23:2-25; Jn 18:28-19:16).

THE PROCEEDINGS AT PILATE’S JERUSALEM PRAETORIUM (Jn 18:28-19:16)

The section of John’s Gospel that deals with the trial of Jesus falls naturally into seven parts, all of them (except the fourth where it is implied) mentioning the action of Pilate as either entering or exiting the praetorium. Ironically the Jewish leaders, who were happily requesting that Pilate execute an innocent man, wished to remain ritually clean so that they could celebrate the Passover. They would not defile themselves by entering the praetorium of the Gentile Romans (18:28). Pilate therefore went back and forth to talk to them where they had gathered, presumably at a side entrance of the castle, just outside the praetorium compound. The action of the trial takes place both inside and outside the praetorium.

18:28-32 OUTSIDE THE PRAETORIUM ‘Pilate then went out unto them’ v.29

18:33-38a INSIDE THE PRAETORIUM ‘Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again’ v.33

18:38b – 40 OUTSIDE THE PRAETORIUM ‘And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews’ v38b

19:1-3 INSIDE THE PRAETORIUM

19:4-8 OUTSIDE THE PRAETORIUM ‘Pilate therefore went forth again’ v.4

19:9-11 INSIDE THE PRAETORIUM ‘And [Pilate] went again into the judgment hall’ v9

19:12-16 OUTSIDE THE PRAETORIUM ‘When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth’ v13

Pilate has gone down in history as the man who presided over the trial of Jesus and some of his words and gestures on that occasion are still well-known today. The expression ‘to wash your hands of’ originates from Pilate’s action signifying his denial of responsibility for the death of Jesus (Mt 27:24). His witticism ‘What is truth?’ is still relevant in today’s era of fake news. For some reason Pilate asked this of the only person who could give him the accurate definition of truth but intentionally did not wait for an answer (18:38). This was just one of several questions asked by Pilate during the course of the trial:

TEN QUESTIONS PILATE ASKED

‘What accusation bring ye against this man?’ (Jn 18:29).

‘Art thou the King of the Jews?’ (Mt. 27:11; Mk. 15:2; Lk 23:3; Jn 18:33, 37).

‘Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?’ (Jn 18:35).

‘Hearest thou not how many thing they witness against thee?’ (Mt. 27:13; Mk 15:4).

‘What is truth?’ (Jn 18:38).

‘Whence art thou?’ (Jn 19:9).

‘Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?’ (Jn 19:10).

‘Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?” (Mt. 27:17, 21; Mk. 15:9; Jn 18:39).

‘What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ?’ (Mt. 27:22).

‘Why, what evil hath he done?’ (Mt. 27:23; Mk. 15:14; Luke 23:22).

The first question in the above list was addressed to the Lord’s Jewish religious accusers, the next six to the Lord himself and the last three to the hostile crowd. Of all the above questions the penultimate one has universal significance. It is a question that everyone must answer.

‘WHAT SHALL I DO THEN WITH JESUS WHICH IS CALLED CHRIST?’

This question is of the utmost importance because what you do with Jesus Christ is the greatest decision of your life. Your personal salvation and your eternal destiny depend upon it. The accounts in the gospels convey the reality that this trial of Jesus at the praetorium was indeed a momentous occasion. The religious leaders were there as the accusers. The Lord Jesus was there as the accused. The crowd was behaving like a jury. Pontius Pilate was the judge. Pilate knew that Jesus was innocent and did not deserve to die, and yet he did not want to annoy the crowd and create an incident at Passover time. Jesus of Nazareth had brought a crisis into his life and he had a choice to make. Would he choose his career or Christ? Was it to be Jesus Christ or Tiberius Caesar (Jn 19:12)?

Pilate must have known about Jesus of Nazareth from intelligence briefings. How often must that name have come up in discussions with his security council (cf. Acts 25:12)! Now, however, Jesus himself was standing before him. That day he was not dealing with a report, he was face to face with the person. Pilate wanted to do the right thing but was under extreme pressure. Does his dilemma sound familiar to you? Have you come face to face with the claims of Christ and wanted to do the right thing, but you have felt the pressure?

What would other people say? What would they do if you were to accept Christ, his claims, his person, his work and his salvation? Pilate discovered that the crowd was not going to make it easy for him to choose Christ, that those people were going to be satisfied with nothing less than his complete rejection of Jesus. He tried to evade the issue by making an appeal and offering an alternative but that backfired. Gradually (after about five hours, Jn 18:28; 19:14) it became clear in Pilate’s mind that inaction was no longer an option. A decision had to be made and so he asked the question: ‘What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ?’

Pilate viewed the evidence against Jesus and reached a firm conclusion. At least three times he publicly asserted: ‘I find no case against him!’ (Lk 23:4, 14, 22). How was it then that a short time later he heard himself sentencing Jesus to death by crucifixion? Pilate thus betrayed an innocent man. He asked the right question, ‘What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ?’ but gave the wrong response, for ‘he delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified’ (Mk 15: 15).

I deliberately wrote that Pilate ‘betrayed’ Jesus because ‘betrayed’ and delivered’ are translations of the same word. Paradídōmi (to hand over) is an important and significant word for the gospel writers and is used of the action of Judas Iscariot (Jn 6:71; 12:4; 13:2, 11, 21; 18:2, 5), the Jewish people (Acts 3:13), their religious authorities (Mt 27:2, 18; Jn 19:11) and Pontius Pilate (Mk 15:15; Jn 19:16) against Jesus Christ.

That day at the Jerusalem praetorium Pontius Pilate made his choice, but it was the wrong one. What, however, have you done with Jesus Christ? This is a personal matter, no-one else can answer that question for you. You must answer for yourself: ‘What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ?’

Jesus is standing in Pilate’s hall —

Friendless, forsaken, betrayed by all:

Hearken! what meaneth the sudden call?

What will you do with Jesus?

____________________

Jesus is standing on trial still,

You can be false to Him if you will,

You can be faithful through good or ill:

What will you do with Jesus?

____________________

Will you evade Him as Pilate tried?

Or will you choose Him, whate’er betide?

Vainly you struggle from Him to hide:

What will you do with Jesus?

____________________

What will you do with Jesus?

Neutral you cannot be;

Some day your heart will be asking,

‘What will He do with me?’

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

Agamben, G. and Kotsko, A., 2015, Pilate and Jesus. Stanford, CA: Meridian

Bammel, E. and Moule, C. D. F., 1971, The Trial of Jesus: Cambridge Studies in Honour of C. F. D. Moule, London: SCM Press

Blinzler, J, 1959, The Trial of Jesus: the Jewish and Roman Proceedings against Jesus Christ Described and Assessed from the Oldest Accounts, Cork, Mercier Press

Bond, H. K., 1998. Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Senior, D., 1991., The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of John, Collegeville, Minn: Michael Glazier

Smallwood, E. M., 1976. The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian: A Study in Political Relations. Leiden: E J Brill

Watson, A., 2012., The Trial of Jesus, University of Georgia Press

JOURNAL ARTICLES

Bermejo-Rubio, F., 2019. Was Pontius Pilate a Single-Handed Prefect? Roman Intelligence Sources as a Missing Link in the Gospels’ Story. Klio, Vol. 101, No.2, pp. 505-542

Bindley, T. Herbert., 1904, ‘Pontius Pilate’ In The Creed, The Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 6, No. 21, pp. 12-13

Bond, H. K., 1996, The Coins of Pontius Pilate: Part of an Attempt to Provoke the People or to Integrate them into the Empire?, Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 241–262

Brown, S., 2015, What Is Truth? Jesus, Pilate, and the Staging of the Dialogue of the Cross in John 18:28-19:1 6a, CBQ, 77, pp. 68-86

Dusenbury, D. L., 2017. The Judgment of Pontius Pilate: A Critique of Giorgio Agamben. Journal of Law and Religion, Vol. 32, No.2, pp. 340-365

Ianovskaia, L., 2011. Pontius Pilate and Yeshua Ha-Nozri. Russian Studies in Literature, Vol. 47, No.2, pp.7-60

Liberty, Stephen., 1944, The Importance of Pontius Pilate in Creed and Gospel, The Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 45, No. 177/178, pp. 38-56

Maier, P. L., 1971, The Fate of Pontius Pilate. Hermes, Vol. 99, No. 3, pp. 362–371

Szanton, N., Hagbi, M., Uziel, J. and Ariel, D., 2019., Pontius Pilate in Jerusalem: The Monumental Street from the Siloam Pool to the Temple Mount, Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, Vol. 46, No.2, pp. 147-166

Taylor, J. E., 2006. Pontius Pilate and the Imperial Cult in Roman Judaea. New Testament Studies, Vol. 52, No. 4, pp. 555-582

Wise, H., 2004, In Defence of Pontius Pilate, Fortnight, No. 429, pp. 14–15

Wright, A., 2017. What Is Truth? The Complicated Characterization of Pontius Pilate in the Fourth Gospel, Review & Expositor, Vol. 114, No.2, pp. 211-219

Posted in Latin loanwords

CENSUS

Posted on by writtenexposition

Mt 17:25; Mt 22:17; Mk 12:14

Greek – (κῆνσος) kḗnsos

Latin – census

English – census

KJV translation – tribute

The recent arrival in the post of our UK Census 2021 instructions, for online completion of the questions by Sunday 21 March, reminded me that not only is our English word ‘census’ derived from the Latin ‘census’ but also that the same Latin word was loaned to Greek and occurs three times in the New Testament, translated ‘tribute.’

Census-taking is not a recent development. Governments have been attempting to collect information on their citizens for many thousands of years and censuses were taken in such diverse regions as ancient China, Egypt, Rome and Israel. Whereas modern census returns are used for planning the funding and delivery of education, infrastructure, health, security and other vital public services, the information collected in the ancient world was for the purposes of taxation and/or military service. Certainly these two reasons lay behind the censuses recorded in the Bible.

The Old Testament mentions census-taking by Joshua (Josh 8:10), and King Saul (1 Sam 11:8; 13:15; 15:4) but the most famous are the two censuses shortly after the Exodus in the 15th century BCE, the census taken by King David about 1000 BCE, the Roman census around the time of Christ’s birth and another mentioned in a speech by Gamaliel in Acts 5:36. The latter in 6 CE met with resistance led by Judas of Galilee.

The census records in scripture, unfortunately, have become the target of critical scholarship and there is controversy surrounding the details given in the biblical accounts. Should you wish to investigate them, much has been written and is readily available online via Google searches relating to topics like: census figures in the book of Numbers, King David’s census, the census under Augustus Caesar, the census of Quirinius, the Theudas problem.

It strikes me as interesting that although in Latin the word ‘census’ means ‘roll’ or ‘registration’ it seems from its three occurrences in the Greek New Testament (Mt 17:25; Mt 22:17; Mk 12:14) that the Jews in the Roman province of Judaea at the time of Christ did not use it in its original sense. They used the word kḗnsos, not for the registration upon which the tax was based but for the actual tax itself. The KJV therefore translates kḗnsos as ‘tribute’, some modern versions translate it as ‘poll-tax.’ That tax was the ‘tributum capitis’ (head-tax) that the Romans imposed on everyone whose name was on the census. It did not apply to Roman citizens but to the population of the provinces ruled by Rome. All males aged 14 to 65 and females aged 12 to 65 were liable, including slaves.

It was a flat rate personal tax of one denarius (a Roman silver coin) per head. The census figures were updated regularly and based on these the Romans calculated how much each tax district owed. These districts were groups of towns called toparchies. Once assessed the local authorities then had to pay the relevant amount to the Romans, who left it up to them to collect the money as they saw fit. The poll-tax was unpopular in the provinces because it brought home to the citizens in a personal way the fact that they were under the domination of a foreign regime.

The tax was particularly hated in Judaea, although, to some extent, it could be said that the Jews had only themselves to blame for it. After the death of Herod the Great in 4 BCE two of his sons, Antipas and Philip, each governed as tetrarch over a quarter of his kingdom. The remaining half, consisting of Judaea, Samaritis and Idumaea, was ruled by another son, Archelaus, as ethnarch. These kings, ruling as clients of Rome, were responsible for collecting the taxes in their own dominions.

The Herods were Idumeans (descendants of Edom) but were brought up as Jews. Although in league with Rome they had the sensitivity (not something for which the Herods are famous) to collect their taxes in local coinage which did not bear an image and was thus acceptable to Jews (Ex 20:4); unlike the Roman denarius which bore the image of the emperor. Archelaus was not a good ruler and for various reasons, including a marriage that was considered incestuous, was disliked by his subjects. The Jews therefore sent delegations to Rome complaining about Herod Archelaus, who was eventually summoned to Rome for investigation.

In 6 CE Archelaus was deposed by the emperor and died in exile less than ten years later. The Jews, however, got more than they bargained for because the Romans annexed Archelaus’s territory, bringing the districts of Judaea, Samaritis and Idumaea under their control as the Roman province of ‘Judaea.’

Direct rule from Rome brought Judaea under the Roman tax system, with its regular censuses and payment of the head-tax in Roman coinage. In 6 CE the first census was taken to determine the tax liability of the new province. This resulted in armed resistance organised by Judas of Galilee on the basis that it was not for people who regarded God as their only master to pay tax to the Roman emperor. The beginning of the Zealot movement is usually traced to this time.

When the Jewish religious leaders had their representatives ask Jesus the loaded question: ‘Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar or not?’ these recent events were still in everyone’s mind and the sensitive topic of the head-tax could easily have inflamed nationalistic and religious fervor.

‘RENDER THEREFORE UNTO CAESAR THE THINGS WHICH ARE CAESAR’S; AND UNTO GOD THE THINGS THAT ARE GOD’S’

In Matthew’s gospel the scene in which Jesus uttered those now famous words about payment of the tribute is set in one of several episodes where he is in conflict with the Jewish religious leaders. These are recorded in Matthew chapters twenty-one and twenty-two. They contain six controversy stories, among which are interspersed four parables. The stories, as already mentioned, are about conflict with the religious authorities. The parables also concern the religious leaders and are aimed at them. They illustrate the failure of the religious authorities to respond to the call of God through Jesus and predict the results of that failure.

THE SIX CONTROVERSY STORIES

21:12-17 Jesus asserts his authority by cleansing the Temple

21:23-27 The question which challenges Jesus’ authority

22:15-22 The question about payment of the poll-tax to the emperor

22:23-33 The questions about the resurrection

22:34-40 The question about the most important commandment

22:41-46 The question (asked by Jesus) about David’s Lord.

THE FOUR PARABLES

21:18-22 The destruction of the unfruitful fig tree

21:28-32 The two sons

21:33-46 The vineyard and the tenants

22:1-14 The wedding banquet and the guest without the proper garment

22:15-22 THE QUESTION ABOUT PAYMENT OF THE POLL-TAX TO THE EMPEROR

After Jesus had driven the traders from the temple the religious leaders had challenged him to state by what authority he had the right to do so. He had replied by asking them if John’s baptism was from heaven, or of men. They dared not answer as they had rejected John but the people thought highly of him. Although it was obvious to all that they knew the answer to the question, they replied that they did not know. This meant that the leading authorities publicly declared themselves unfit to pronounce judgement on a simple, clearcut matter. Jesus therefore refused to tell them by whose authority he had cleansed the Temple (21:27).

Having been made to look incompetent in their discussion with Jesus the Pharisees deliberately consulted (22:15) and laid plans as to how they might trap him in his talk. It is likely that they involved other groups, such as the Herodians (22:16) and the Sadducees (22:23), whom they normally opposed, in these discussions. It is interesting that often those who have no time for one another are willing to temporarily lay aside their differences and form a coalition against Christ and his teachings.

They therefore approached Jesus, armed with premeditated questions, and began by insincerely flattering him with words similar to those which Nicodemus (Jn 3:2) had used sincerely: “Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone’s opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances” (ESV). They addressed him as ‘teacher’ but he knew that they had not come to him as to a rabbi for guidance on a topic of religious concern. Once they asked their question ‘Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?’ he said: ‘Why put me to the test, you hypocrites?’

They had been hoping for a Yes or No answer. If Jesus condemned the payment of the poll-tax to Caesar then they would accuse him of sedition and have him arrested by the Roman authorities for being a Zealot. If he said it ought to be paid then they could stir up the crowd against him, saying that as a collaborator with the oppressive occupying regime and its corrupt system of taxation he was a traitor to his own people and the Jewish religion. There was no loophole. They had him in a dilemma, he could not escape.

Instead of giving a Yes or No answer Jesus asked them to show him the coin that was the only legal tender for paying Roman taxes. Taking a silver denarius he used it as a visual aid, asking: ‘Whose is this image and superscription?’ They answered: ‘Caesar’s.’ Matthew does not tell us which emperor had struck the coin. It may have borne the engraved image of the then current emperor Tiberius Caesar, or perhaps that of his predecessor and stepfather, Caesar Augustus. If a coin of Tiberius it would typically have been inscribed in abbreviated Latin as follows:

[Obverse]

TI. CAESAR DIVI AVG. F. AVGVSTVS

Tiberius Caesar, Son of the Divine Augustus, himself Augustus

[Reverse]

TR. POT. XVII. IMP. VII.

Holder of the Tribunician Power for the Seventeenth Time, Hailed as Imperator (Victorious Commander) for the Seventh Time

Jesus said to them: ‘Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s’. It is then said that his questioners marvelled and left him. This was because it was a wise answer which identified two sets of priorities. Jesus was effectively asking them: ‘Who is Caesar and what does he demand?’ and ‘Who is God, and what does he demand?’ His words must have struck home to both groups that had come together to ask the question. The anti-Roman Pharisees were unwilling to render to Caesar the things that were Caesar’s, the power hungry and wealth-seeking Herodians who colluded with the Romans were refusing to render to God what belonged to God.

As we complete and submit our census forms let us remember that every one of us has a two-fold obligation – to Caesar (the state), and to God. These are not mutually exclusive, faithfulness as a Christian does not hinder obedience as a good citizen. Nor are they the same. Caesar assesses what we have. God claims what we are. Caesar’s image and superscription are on our coins, God’s image and superscription is stamped on our consciences. Caesar takes from what is ours, tax is a liability and not voluntary. God expects us to give him our all, it is voluntary and not obligatory. We owe Caesar loyalty and respect, we give God our worship and our service.

If only the Jewish leaders had taken on board the wise advice that Jesus gave on the subject of the poll-tax! The Jewish wars (66-73 CE), the destruction of Jerusalem and the downfall of the Jewish nation might never have come to pass. They failed to ‘render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s,’ and paid a terrible price (Lk 19:42-44).

Posted in Exposition

KING JOSIAH OF JUDAH – BIBLIOGRAPHY

Posted on by writtenexposition

BOOKS

Amit, Y., 2006. Essays on Ancient Israel in its Near Eastern Context: A Tribute to Nadav Na’aman. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns

Barrick, W. B., 2002. The King And The Cemeteries: Toward A New Understanding Of Josiah’s Reform. Leiden: Brill

Barton, J. and Muddiman, J., 2007. The Oxford Bible Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Beacon, R., 1892. Thoughts on 2 Chronicles, Addison, IL: Bible Truth Publishers

Blenkinsopp, J., 1986. Prophecy and Canon: A Contribution to the Study of Jewish Origins, Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press

Bright, J., 2000. A History Of Israel. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press

Brueggemann, W., 2000. 1 & 2 Kings. Macon: GE: Smyth & Helwys Publishing

Day, J., 2010. Prophecy and the Prophets in Ancient Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, London: T & T Clark

Finegan, J., 1999. Handbook Of Biblical Chronology: Principles Of Time Reckoning In The Ancient World And Problems Of Chronology In The Bible. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson.

Gabriel, R. A., 2003. The Military History Of Ancient Israel. Westport, Conn.: Praeger

Goldingay, J. and Allen, L., 2007. Uprooting And Planting: Essays On Jeremiah For Leslie Allen. New York: T & T Clark

Grabbe, L. and Nissinen, M., 2011. Constructs of Prophecy in the Former and Latter Prophets and Other Texts, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature

Graham, M., Knoppers, G. and McKenzie, S., 2003. The Chronicler as Theologian. London: T & T Clark International

Gray, R., 1833. Josiah and Cyrus, Two Great Objects of Divine Notice, in the Scheme of Revelation. London: J. G. & F. Rivington

Harrison, R. K., 2009. Jeremiah And Lamentations. Nottingham, England: Inter-Varsity Press.

Jones, F. N., 1993. The Chronology Of The Old Testament: A Return To The Basics. The Woodlands Texas: KingsWord Press

Knapp, C., 1983. The Kings Of Judah And Israel. Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux Brothers

Kratz, R. G. and Kurtz, P. M., 2015. Historical And Biblical Israel. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press

Lemche, N., 1998. The Israelites In History And Tradition. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Liverani, M., Peri, C. and Davies, P., 2007. Israel’s History And The History Of Israel. London: Equinox Publishing Ltd.

Longman, T., Enns, P. and Strauss, M., 2013. The Baker Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group

Lundbom, J., 2004. ‘Jeremiah’, in The Anchor Bible, New York, NY: Doubleday

Lundbom, J., 2013. Jeremiah Closer Up. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press

Monroe, L. A. S., 2011. Josiah’s Reform and the Dynamics of Defilement. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press

Porter, S., 2009. Dictionary Of Biblical Criticism And Interpretation. London: Routledge

Prosic, T., 2004. The Development and Symbolism of Passover until 70 CE. London: T & T Clark International

Rawlinson, G., 1879. ‘1 & 2 Chronicles’, in Student’s Commentary On The Bible: Old Testament Vol II Joshua -Esther. London: John Murray

Rawlinson, G., 1879. ‘1 & 2 Kings’, in Student’s Commentary On The Bible: Old Testament Vol II Joshua -Esther. London: John Murray

Rossier, H., 1993. Meditations On The Second Book Of Chronicles. Sunbury, Pa.: Believers Bookshelf, Inc.

Venema, G. J., 2004. Reading Scripture in the Old Testament, Leiden: Brill

Voegelin, E., Sandoz, E., Weiss, G. and Petropulos, W., 2001. The Collected Works Of Eric Voegelin: Volume 14: Order And History, Volume I, Israel And Revelation, Columbia: Missouri University Press

Walton, J., Matthews, V. and Chavalas, M., 2004. The IVP Bible Background Commentary. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press

Wolfendale, J., 1892. The Preacher’s Complete Homiletic Commentary on the First and Second Books of the Chronicles. New York: Funk & Wagnalls

JOURNAL ARTICLES

Ahlström, G., 1981. King Josiah and the dwd of Amos vi. 10. Journal of Semitic Studies, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp.7-9

Avioz, M., 2007. Josiah’s Death in the Book of Kings. Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, Vol. 83, No.4, pp.359-36

Ben-Dov, J., 2008. Writing as Oracle and as Law: New Contexts for the Book-Find of King Josiah. Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 127 , No. 2 (Summer, 2008), pp.223-239

Claburn, W., 1973. The Fiscal Basis of Josiah’s Reforms. Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, No. 1, pp.11-22

Delamarter, S., 2004. The Death of Josiah in Scripture and Tradition: Wrestling with the Problem of Evil? Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 54, No. 1, pp.29-60

Galil, G., 1993. Geba’-Ephraim and the Northern Boundary of Judah in the days of Josiah, Revue Biblique, Vol. 100, No. 3, pp. 358-367

Glatt-Gilad, D., 1996, The Role of Huldah’s Prophecy in the Chronicler’s Portrayal of Josiah’s Reform, Biblica, Vol. 77, No. 1, pp.16-31

Hamori, E., 2013. The Prophet and the Necromancer: Women’s Divination for Kings. Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 132, No. 4, pp.827-843

Hasegawa, S., 2017. Josiah’s Death: Its Reception History as Reflected in the Books of Kings and Chronicles. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Vol. 129, No. 4, pp.522-535

Heltzer, M., 2000. Some Questions Concerning the Economic Policy of Josiah, King of Judah. Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 50 (1/2), pp.105-108

Janzen, D., 2013. The Sins of Josiah and Hezekiah: A Synchronic Reading of the Final Chapters of Kings. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp.349-370

Jonker, L. C., 2012. Huldah’s Oracle: The Origin of the Chronicler’s Typical Style, Verbum et Ecclesia, Vol. 33, No.1, pp.1-7

Leuchter, M., 2009. »The Prophets« and »The Levites« in Josiah’s Covenant Ceremony. Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Vol. 121, No.1, pp.31-47

Malamat, A., 1950. The Last Wars of the Kingdom of Judah, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp.218-227

Markl, D., 2014. No Future without Moses: The Disastrous End of 2 Kings 22–25 and the Chance of the Moab Covenant (Deuteronomy 29–30). Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 133, No. 4, pp.711-728

Na’aman, N., 2011. The “Discovered Book” and the Legitimation of Josiah’s Reform. Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 130, No. 1, pp.47-62

Na’aman, N., 2013, Notes on the Temple ‘Restorations’ of Jehoash and Josiah. Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 63, No. 4, pp.640-651

Mitchell, C, 2006. The Ironic Death of Josiah in 2 Chronicles. CBQ, Vol. 68, No. 3, pp.421-435

Paton, L. B., 1898. The Religion of Judah from Josiah to Ezra, The Biblical World, Vol. 11, No.6, pp.410-421.

Talshir, Z., 1996. The Three Deaths of Josiah and the Strata of Biblical Historiography (2 Kings XXIII 29-30; 2 Chronicles XXXV 20-5; 1 Esdras 1 23-31), Vetus Testamentum, 46 (Fasc. 2, (Apr.,1996), pp.213-236

Wilson, A. M., 1892. The Character and Work of Josiah, The Old and New Testament Student, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp.276-284

Yadin, Y., 1976. Beer-sheba: The High Place Destroyed by King Josiah. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Vol. 222 (April), pp.5-17

See my posts:

King Josiah of Judah in 2 Kings

King Josiah of Judah in 2 Chronicles

The Death of King Josiah of Judah

Posted in General

THE DEATH OF KING JOSIAH OF JUDAH (640-609 BCE)

Posted on by writtenexposition

THE UNEXPECTED END OF A GOOD KING

Since King Josiah of Judah (640-609 BCE) is unknown in secular history, records of his death are only to be found in three religious texts. These are the canonical books 2 Kings (23:29-30) and 2 Chronicles (35:20-25) plus the deuterocanonical book 1 Esdras (1:25-32). The accounts differ in some details but all agree that Josiah met his end as the result of an encounter with Pharaoh Neco of Egypt.

The biblical record of Josiah concentrates mainly on internal affairs and gives us neither the big picture as regards geopolitics, nor a summary of Josiah’s foreign policy and his manoeuvres in response to the power plays between the superpowers of Assyria, Egypt and Bablylonia. One therefore has to form a conjecture of the sequence of events from information about the period available in external historical sources.

The might of the Assyrian empire had been declining for many years, certainly since before Josiah came to the throne. The Egyptians, the Elamites, the Arabian tribes and others had all revolted, and internal power struggles further weakened the massive empire. Under Ashurbanipal (669-631 BCE) the Assyrians had some success in quelling revolts but things worsened after his death. By the end of Josiah’s reign the Babylonians, under Cyaxares the Mede (625-585 BCE) and the Chaldean Nabopolassar (626-605 BCE), father of Nebuchadnezzar, were coming into ascendancy. It would seem that the Egyptians under their new Pharaoh Neco, although traditionally hostile towards their Assyrians overlords, preferred a weak Assyria to a strong Babylonia, and had committed themselves to helping the Assyrians against the Babylonians.

‘While Josiah was king, Pharaoh Necho king of Egypt went up to the Euphrates River to help the king of Assyria. ‘ 2 Kgs 23:29a (NIV)

NB. There has been ongoing controversy over the translation of this verse. The KJV has ‘went up against’ while modern translations like the NIV and ESV say ‘went up to.’ For a technical discussion arguing for a retention of the KJV translation and maintaining that Egypt did not help Assyria see F. N. Jones, 1993, The Chronology of the Old Testament:
A Return to the Basics pp. 184-188. He contends that ‘the king of Assyria’ refers to the Neo-Babylonian Nabopolassar (‘the new possessor of the title “King of Assyria” p.188) who had recently defeated the Assyrians. This article, however, proceeds on the basis that Neco went up to help the Assyrians against the Babylonians, as per the modern translations.

The Babylonian Chronicle for 609 BCE confirms the information given in 2 Kings 23:29 that an Egyptian army crossed the River Euphrates in order to help the Assyrians under Asshur-uballit fight a last ditch attempt to retake Haran from the Babylonians. The Babylonians had taken and destroyed Nineveh, capital of the Assyrian empire in 612 BCE. The Assyrians had set up a refugee government in the town of Haran (in modern day Turkey) but had fled from there when it too was captured by the Babylonians in 610. They needed an Egypto-Assyrian victory in order to survive.

It is probable that Josiah, who is thought to have been an unwilling vassal of Egypt for some years before then, had foreseen that the Babylonians would emerge the superior power and had thrown in his lot with them. Some reckon that he therefore went to Megiddo with the express intention of engaging in military action against Neco and the Egyptian army in order to detain them on their way north to help the Assyrians retake Haran. The delay Josiah intended to cause would hinder the progress of the Egyptian reinforcements towards the Assyrians and make a Babylonian victory more likely.

‘King Josiah marched out to meet him in battle, but Necho faced him and killed him at Megiddo.’ 2 Kgs 23:29b (NIV)

2 Chronicles makes no mention of the Assyrians but does say that Neco was heading for Carchemish in great haste (2 Chron 35:20-21).

Some scholars think that Josiah had been summoned to Megiddo by Neco. Neco had ascended the Egyptian throne just the previous year (610 BCE) and may have wished to meet and receive homage from his Judaean vassal. This type of request was standard procedure (e.g. Ahaz’s trip to Damascus to meet Tiglath-pileser, 2 Kgs 16:10) and, as Neco assured Josiah, was not an occasion for hostilities (2 Chron 25:31; 1 Esdras 1:26-27)

Whatever the motive, Josiah went to Megiddo with war in mind. Various reasons have been proposed:

a) he was filled with religious and nationalistic fervour as a result of his reforms. He was so keen to fight the old enemy, Egypt, that he was blind to reason.

b) he overestimated his military capabilities.

C) as has already been suggested, he calculated that there would be a change in the balance of international power in favour of the Babylonians and hoped to curry favour by obstructing the Egyptian armed forces on their way to assist the Assyrians.

According to 2 Kings 23:29-30 Josiah was killed at Megiddo and his dead body transferred from there by chariot to Jerusalem for burial.

According to 2 Chronicles 35:23-24 archers shot and mortally wounded him at Megiddo. His officers transferred him into another chariot which brought him to Jerusalem, where he died and was buried.

According to 1 Esdras 1:30-31 he was not injured or killed in battle but was overcome by a weakness, transferred to a second chariot and taken to Jerusalem, where he died and was buried: ‘The king said to his servants, “Take me away from the battle, for I am very weak.” And immediately his servants took him out of the line of battle. He got into his second chariot; and after he was brought back to Jerusalem he died, and was buried in the tomb of his ancestors.’ 1 Esdras 1:30-31

Pharaoh Neco went on to the Euphrates to help with the assault on Haran. Near Carchemish his forces were routed by the Babylonians. Neco and his army retreated and, on his way back to Egypt some three months later, Neco summoned Josiah’s son and successor Jehoahaz to his camp at Riblah on the Orontes (near Lebanon). He took Jehoahaz captive and transported him to Egypt, installing his brother Jehoiakim as an Egyptian puppet and vassal. Although he paid dearly for it, Josiah’s delaying action may have successfully caused Neco’s failure to save Assyria.

One might wonder how Josiah’s untimely demise squares with the oracle of Huldah the prophetess which appeared to promise him a good death (2 Kgs 22:20; 2 Chron 34:28). Upon closer inspection, however, Huldah’s prophecy only promised him a peaceful burial (‘thou shalt be gathered into thy grave in peace’ ) i.e. his country would not be at war.

Huldah’s prophecy provides one of the explanations given in the Bible for Josiah’s unexpected death. In those days in Judah the death of a king in battle would not have been regarded as heroic. Nor would it have been attributed to bad decision-making on his part or just plain ‘bad luck’. It would have been regarded as part of a chain of cause and effect. Evil behaviour resulted in punishment, righteous living was rewarded with prosperity and long life. According to this system of retribution Josiah must have done wrong! How could such a thing have happened to a righteous and godly young man whose life was marked by ‘goodness’ (2 Chron 35:26) and warranted the glowing assessment of 2 Kgs 23:25?

‘And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to the Lord with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him’

Three possible explanations (reading between the lines) were given:

1) Josiah did not listen to the word of God spoken through a foreign king – Pharaoh Neco.

‘Nevertheless Josiah would not turn his face from him, but disguised himself, that he might fight with him, and hearkened not unto the words of Necho from the mouth of God, and came to fight in the valley of Megiddo’ 2 Chron 35:22

2) Josiah died because of his grandfather Manasseh’s sins.

‘Because they have forsaken me, and have burned incense unto other gods, that they might provoke me to anger with all the works of their hands; therefore my wrath shall be kindled against this place, and shall not be quenched.’ 2 Kings 22:17

‘Notwithstanding the LORD turned not from the fierceness of his great wrath, wherewith his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations that Manasseh had provoked him withal.’ 2 Kgs 23:26

3) Josiah’s death was a mercy.

According to Huldah’s prophecy (2 Kgs 22:20; 2 Chron 34:28) Josiah would have a peaceful burial. His country was not on a war footing and he was spared the distress of the forthcoming Babylonian invasion.


LESSONS:

a. Do not involve yourself in conflicts that do not concern the Lord’s people. Neco’s battle was with Babylon, not Judah.

b. Be open to the prompting and leading of the Lord through personal circumstances. Josiah died because he failed to recognize and heed God’s word through Pharoah Neco. Often God prompts through people and circumstances as well as through his written word.

See my posts:

King Josiah of Judah in 2 Kings

King Josiah of Judah in 2 Chronicles

King Josiah of Judah – Bibliography

Posted in Exposition

KING JOSIAH OF JUDAH in 2 Chronicles

Posted on by writtenexposition

READING: 2 Chronicles chapters 34-35

DIVISION

34:1-2 Opening Formula

34:3-5 Josiah’s religious purification of Jerusalem and Judah in his 12th regnal year

34:6-7 The extension of his activities to the northern tribal areas of Manasseh, Ephraim, Simeon, Naphtali, all Israel

34:8-18 Temple repairs and the finding of a torah scroll

34:19-28 Huldah’s oracle

34:29-32 Covenant-making

34:33 A summary verse

35:1-19 The Passover Celebration

35:20-27 The Death of King Josiah

THE JOSIAH ACCOUNT IN 2 CHRONICLES 34-35

34:1-2 Opening Formula

As in 2 Kings this introductory formula introduces the king and profiles his reign. Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign and the length of his reign was thirty-one years (640-609 BCE). He is commended for doing what was right in the sight of YHWH and like 2 Kgs 22:2 his name is linked with that of his ancestor David. The opening formula in 2 Kings gives us three facts; 1) his age at accession 2) the number of years he reigned 3) his mother’s name. The latter piece of information is not mentioned by the Chronicler. In both 2 Kings 22:2 and 2 Chron 34:2 Josiah is said to have deviated ‘neither to the right hand, nor to the left.’ Both formulae therefore immediately link Josiah to the book of Deuteronomy, where it is said that the model king should make a copy of the torah and read it all his life so that ‘he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left.’

See my post: ‘King Josiah of Judah in 2 Kings‘

34:3-5 Josiah’s religious purification of Jerusalem and Judah in his 12th year

Unlike the Kings account which seems unconcerned with chronology and telescopes the main events of Josiah’s career into just one year (his eighteenth), the Chronicler is at pains to emphasize that his reforms were a step-by-step process. According to 2 Chronicles 34:3 he had a religious awakening during his eighth regnal year (633/2 BCE) while he was still young (about 16 years of age). It was then that he began to seek YHWH. It does not seem that his advisers, whoever they were, during the early part of his reign were concerned to guide him in the ways of the Lord. Presumably, for the first sixteen years of his life, those advising him were pro-Assyrian, and his religious policies would therefore have been similar to those pursued by his father Amon. We are not told why it took him four years of ‘seeking after’ the Lord before launching his campaign to rid the land of idolatry in the twelth year of his reign. 2 Kings has the purge initiated following the discovery of a torah scroll in the Temple in his eighteenth year (621 BCE). Here in 2 Chronicles the reforms begin in his twelth year – a full six years before the discovery of the law-book. This sequence of events is the most noticeable difference between the accounts of 2 Kgs 22-23 and 2 Chron 34-35.

In his twelth year (c. 628 BCE), at age twenty, he began a purge aimed at ridding Judah and Jerusalem of the high places, the groves, the carved idols and the cast images and restoring the pure worship of YHWH. Verses 3b-5 give a fuller explanation of what he did in Jerusalem and Judah. He personally supervised the destruction of places of idolatry, of the images themselves and of objects related to their worship. The high places must have been those which his grandfather Manasseh had rebuilt but at which the people only sacrificed to YHWH (33:3, 17). Verse 4 clearly states that the altars of the Baals were destroyed by him and that, as part of the same event, so were the images that were located high above them. It is not clear what these images were, possibly they had something to do with sun worship. The Chronicler does not record him purging the Jerusalem Temple, this had already been done by Manasseh ( 33:15-16). The purification of the temple mentioned in v. 8 would have been to sanctify it again through rituals after the completion of restoration works.

Verses 4b and 5 tell us that Josiah desecrated the graves of the idolatrous priests and burned their bones upon their altars. This was a crime for which the prophet Amos had denounced the king of Moab (Amos 2:1), yet the Chronicler passes no comment upon it. (cp. another passage about the disrespectful treatment of bones Jer 8:1-3). Perhaps this was seen as posthumous punishment for the idolaters, cremation being the punishment meted out to those regarded as false priests in Num16:35. Cremation is also prescribed as a punishment in Lev 20:14; 21:9 and Josh 7:25.

34:6-7 The extension of Josiah’s activities to the northern tribal areas of Manasseh, Ephraim, Simeon, Naphtali, all Israel

Taking advantage of Assyrian weakness at that time Josiah extended his campaign against idolatry into the territory that had been the Northern kingdom of Israel but was then part of the Assyrian empire. Although the Bible says little about his military exploits Josiah must have been strong enough to act independently and recover this territory from Assyrian control. The religious purge he conducted there was just as thorough as that in Judah:

‘In the towns of Manasseh, Ephraim and Simeon, as far as Naphtali, and in the ruins around them, he tore down the altars and the Asherah poles and crushed the idols to powder and cut to pieces all the incense altars throughout Israel. Then he went back to Jerusalem.’ 2 Chron 34:6-7 (NIV)

Thus Josiah set out on a personal, fanatical crusade against idolatry which, as clarified in 2 Kings 23:4-20, was implemented in three stages; 1) Judah and Jerusalem 2) Bethel 3) the towns of Samaria. Apart from the plural subject (they) at the beginning of v.4, the Chronicler, in 34:3-7, portrays Josiah himself as the one who toured the country systematically demolishing and burning;

‘he began to purge, he cut down, he broke..made dust, strewed, he burnt, so did he, when he had broken.’

2 Chron 34:4 and 2 Kgs 23:16 actually place him on site supervising the destruction.

34:8-18 Temple repairs and the finding of a torah scroll

The Chronicler comes now to the eighteenth year of Josiah which features so prominently in the 2 Kings account of his reign and relates the story of the finding of ‘a book of the law of the Lord given by Moses’ during restoration work on the Temple. Before this work by Josiah there seems to have been few changes made to the Temple since its construction by Solomon more than three hundred years earlier except;

* Some repairs by King Jehoash (2 Kgs 12:5-17).

* King Jotham built the upper gate of the temple (2 Kgs 15:35)

* King Ahaz made some structural changes on account of the king of Assyria (2 Kgs 16:17-18)

When money that had been given by people visiting the temple was brought out Hilkiah the priest found the law-book. This money appears to have been collected in large collection chests situated near the altar and watched over (2 Kgs 12:10; 22:4) by the ‘keepers of the threshold’ (Levites stationed at the door). Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan the scribe who told Josiah about it while reporting on the finances of the Temple restoration project. Shaphan then read ‘out of it’ to the king who was greatly affected by what he heard and instructed a committee to inquire of the Lord concerning the book.

34:19-28 Huldah’s oracle and 34:29-32 Covenant-making

For comments on the above topics see my post: ‘King Josiah of Judah in 2 Kings‘

34:33 A summary verse

This verse emphasizes the role of the king in the religious purges and emphasizes that he ‘made’ the people serve the Lord. Compelled by Josiah, the commitment of the people to YHWH was superficial, there had been no inner change; they were still idolators at heart. Is it any wonder that his reforms had no permanent results, but died along with him? The Chronicler adds a comment of his own: ‘And all his days they departed not from following the Lord, the God of their fathers.’ There was no open idolatry for the rest of Josiah’s reign.

35:1-19 The Passover Celebration see also 1 Esdras 1:1-22

This Passover celebration, expressing renewed commitment to YHWH, is given prominence in the Chronicles account whereas it is mentioned but briefly in 2 Kings 23:21-23. Prior to this families would have observed the Passover in their own homes. This Passover, however was a public celebration in Jerusalem (35:1), in accordance with Deut 16:1-5. According to the Chronicler, there had never been a Passover like it (35:18). Much the same was said of Hezekiah’s Passover (2 Chron 30:26). From v.1 we learn that Josiah held it on the 14th day of the first month (Nisan). That was the correct date; Hezekiah’s celebration had been held a month later, on the 14th of the second month (2 Chron 30:15), and had lasted for two weeks rather than one (2 Chron 30:23).

By way of preparation for the great Passover Josiah set in motion the Temple service. For some reason he had to ‘urge’ the priests to take up their duties. He also organised the Levites, changing their responsibilities since they no longer carried the ark, see point a). They were to assist the priests in the Temple worship and in flaying the sacrificial animals. They are identified in v. 3 as teachers in Israel, a role formerly fulfilled by the priests (Jer 18:18; Hos 4:6) The obligations of the Levites are listed as:

a) To take the Ark of the Covenant back to its place in the Temple (35:3). It must have been stored elsewhere while the renovations were ongoing. It would no longer be a burden upon their shoulders i.e. its location in the Temple would be permanent so other duties would be allocated to them (35:11).

b) To serve the Lord their God and his people Israel (35:3).

c) To arrange themselves by families into divisions as appointed and decreed by David and Solomon (35:4)

d) To stand in the holy place in groups representing the subdivisions of each family(35:5)

e) To slaughter the Passover lambs (35:6)

f) To consecrate themselves (35:6)

g) To prepare the lambs for their fellow-Israelites (35:6).

THE SACRIFICIAL ANIMALS

The king, representing the nation and as the leading worshipper of YHWH, the national God, was the major supplier of animals for sacrifice. For this Passover he is said to have contributed 30,000 flock animals (lambs and kids) and 3000 bullocks.

2600 small animals and 300 oxen were willingly supplied by three men ( Hilkiah, Zechariah, Jehiel) who, all at the one time, shared the title ‘chief of the Temple.’ In other references to this position only one official bore the title (1 Chron 9:11; 2 Chron 31:13; Neh 11;11).

Other chiefs (named in v.9) donated 5000 small animals and 500 oxen. The sacrificial victims therefore numbered 41,400; 37,600 small animals and 3800 large animals.

35:10-19 With the priests and Levites in appointed stations the Passover began. The Levites slaughtered the sacrificial animals and passed the blood on to the priests who sprinkled it upon the altar. As this was a public Passover the blood could not be sprinkled on the side posts and upper door posts of family homes (Ex 12:7). The Levites butchered the cattle and prepared the pieces for the burnt offerings. They also roasted the Passover and boiled the consecrated offerings – distributing the cooked meat among the people. Since the priests were busy with the burnt offerings they and the Levites did not partake until later. The musicians and doorkeepers (Temple security) participated without having to leave their posts. Th Chronicler gives an extravagantly positive assessment of the occasion saying that there was never a Passover like it.

It is interesting to read, compare and contrast the major biblical Passovers:

1. In Egypt – at the Exodus. Exod 12;1-51

2. At Sinai. Num 9:1-5

3. In Canaan. Josh 5:10-12

4. Hezekiah’s Passover. 2 Chron 30:1-27

5. Josiah’s Passover 2 Kgs 23:21-23; 2 Chron 35:1-19

6. After the return from exile. Ezra 6:19-21

35:20-27 The Death of King Josiah

We are told nothing about the final thirteen years of King Josiah’s life. His death as a result of a confrontation with Pharaoh Neco at Megiddo is recorded. He was buried in one of the royal tombs and mourned by all Judah and Jerusalem, including the prophet Jeremiah who wrote a lament for him. In 2 Chronicles Jeremiah is mentioned here (35;25) and also in 36:12, 22, and 22. We know from an oracle pronounced against Shallum (Jehoahaz), a son of Josiah, that Jeremiah considered Josiah to be a just man:

‘Shalt thou reign, because thou closest thyself in cedar? did not thy father eat and drink, and do judgment and justice, and then it was well with him? He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well with him: was not this to know me? saith the LORD.’ Jer 22:15-16

See my posts:

King Josiah of Judah in 2 Kings

The Death of King Josiah of Judah

King Josiah of Judah – Bibliography

Posted in Exposition

KING JOSIAH OF JUDAH in 2 Kings

Posted on by writtenexposition

READINGS:

2 Kings 22:1 – 23:30;

2 Chronicles 33:25 – 35:27;

See also: 1 Esdras 1:1-33

INTRODUCTION

Although unknown to secular history, King Josiah of Judah is one of the most significant figures in the Old Testament. He figures prominently in 2 Kings (22:1-23:30) and in 2 Chronicles (chps 34-35). The author of the Book of Kings is particularly enthusiastic about him and his achievements: ‘Neither before nor after Josiah was there a king like him who turned to the LORD as he did—with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his strength, in accordance with all the Law of Moses’ (2 Kgs 23:25). As well as the two accounts of Josiah’s career in the canonical books of 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles there is a third in the deuterocanonical book 1 Esdras (1:1-33). These three accounts differ from one another, most noticeably in the details surrounding Josiah’s death.

EARLY LIFE

Scant details are given in 2 Kings of the first seventeen years of Josiah’s life. He was the son of King Amon (642-640 BCE) of Judah (2 Kgs 21:26) by Jedidiah, daughter of Adaiah of Bozkath (2 Kgs 22:1). He probably remembered his grandfather Manasseh who, after a long reign (2 Kgs 21:1), died when Josiah was six years old.

His father Amon reigned for just two years before being assassinated by his own courtiers (2 Kgs 21:23). The biblical accounts do not give us the course of events leading up to the coup d’état that toppled Amon but it is thought that he continued the pro-Assyrian policies of his father Manasseh who had been a loyal vassal of Assyria for more than fifty years. Manasseh had not only tolerated but also encouraged pagan cults and practices, including divination, magic, sacred prostitution and human sacrifice. He even set up altars to the astral deities in the Temple of YHWH at Jerusalem (2 Kings 21:2-7; Zeph 1:4-6). According to the Chronicler, Amon was even more devoted to Assyrian religious practices than his father had been:

‘But he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, as did Manasseh his father: for Amon sacrificed unto all the carved images which Manasseh his father had made, and served them; And humbled not himself before the LORD, as Manasseh his father had humbled himself; but Amon trespassed more and more.’ 2 Chron 33:22-23

Those who conspired to kill Amon must have been anti-Assyrian and thought it a good time to rebel against the weakening Assyrian empire. It was struggling to quell uprisings in various parts of the empire at that time. Egypt was trying to gain control of Assyrian territory in Palestine and c. 639 laid siege to Ashdod, capital of Philistia, a province belonging to Assyria. The Arabian tribes and Acre and Ushu (mainland Tyre) revolted as did Elam. That Ashurbanipal brutally quelled these rebellions makes it seem likely that ‘the people of the land’, wishing to avoid military conflict with Assyria and the reprisals that would follow, successfully launched a counter-revolution. They executed those responsible for the regicide and installed Amon’s underage son Josiah as king. The status quo was thus restored and Assyria took no punitive action.

The child-king Josiah must have had a regent and/or a body of advisors but no details are given in the biblical record. The following officials are mentioned in the Josiah story and it may be that one or more of them acted on Josiah’s behalf.

Shaphan the scribe, son of Azaliah, the son of Meshullam  2 Kgs 22:3

Ahikam the son of Shaphan  2 Kgs 22:12,14; 2 Chron 34:20

Maaseiah the governor of the city   2 Chron 34:8

Joah the son of Joahaz the recorder  2 Chron 34:8

Achbor the son of Michaiah   2 Kgs 22:12,14

Abdon the son of Micah  2 Chron 34:20

Hilkiah the High Priest   2 Kgs 22:4, 8,10,12;  2 Chron 34:9,14, 15,18, 20

THE JOSIAH ACCOUNT IN 2 KINGS 22:1-23:30

22:1-2 Introductory Formula

22:3-10 The Temple and the Torah scroll

22:11-13 King Josiah’s response to the scroll

22:14-20 Huldah’s oracle

23:1-3 Making a covenant

23:4-20, 24 Purging Judah’s worship

23:21-23 The Passover

23:25 A positive verdict on Josiah

23:26-27 A negative verdict on Jerusalem

23:28-30 Josiah’s death

22:1-2 Introductory Formula

This tells us that Josiah began to reign at age eight and was on the throne for a period of thirty-one years (640-609 BCE). His mother was Jedidah, daughter of Adaiah of Boscath. It also gives a glowing introductory assessment based on his devotion to YHWH, Israel’s God.

‘And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, and walked in all the way of David his father, and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left.’

This is essentially repeated in the closing verdict on Josiah given in 2 Kgs 23:25:

‘And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to the Lord with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him.’

A similar assessment was made of King Hezekiah in chapter 18:

‘He trusted in the LORD God of Israel; so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him. For he cleaved to the LORD, and departed not from following him, but kept his commandments, which the LORD commanded — Moses.’ 2 Kgs 18:5-6

There is, however, a difference of emphasis in the assessment of the two kings. The author of Kings is acclaiming Hezekiah’s trust but he applauds Josiah’s repentance.

22:3-10 The Temple and the Torah scroll

In the eighteenth year of Josiah’s reign (621 BCE) a programme of temple refurbishment was launched. Shaphan the scribe was appointed by the king to manage the project. His main responsibilities were the management of the finances for the building work and the payment of the tradesmen. He is the first of two main characters who feature in this section. The other is Hilkiah the High Priest. He reported to Shaphan his find of a torah scroll (the book of the law) in the temple (22:8). It must have lain in storage for years, the implication is that it had been long forgotten. Shaphan, in an audience with the king, unemotionally reported two main facts:

a) the financial arrangements had been carried out as required and the workmen had been paid.

b) the High Priest Hilkiah had found a scroll in the Temple.

The scroll was then read to King Josiah.

22:11-13 King Josiah’s response to the scroll

‘When the king had heard the words of the book of the law…he rent his clothes.’ The verb ‘to hear (šāma) has the idea of not just literally hearing but of also obeying. The most familiar passage in which the word is used is probably in Deut 6:4, where the instruction is not only to hear but also to do:

‘Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.’

THE BOOK

It is generally reckoned that ‘the book’ that was found in the Temple was a scroll of Deuteronomy. It is called ‘the book of the law’ (2 Kgs 22:8, 11), ‘the book of the covenant’ (2 Kgs 23:2; 21) and ‘a book of the law of the Lord given by Moses’ (2 Chron 34:14). That it certainly contained threats (for Josiah’s reaction was extreme) strongly suggests Deuteronomy (Deut 27:15-25; 28:15-68). Josiah found it unsettling that Judah’s indifference meant that the Lord was angry with the nation (v13).

Josiah’s response was to rend (tear) his clothes. This was a dramatic expression of either grief ( Gen 37:29; Job 1:20) or repentance (1 Kgs 21:27). In Josiah’s case it probably represented both. His response to the reading of the torah (law) scroll stands in marked contrast to the later reaction of King Jehoiakim to a scroll containing words of the prophet Jeremiah (Jer 36:23). He cut it up with a scribe’s knife and burned it. ‘Rent (tore)’ in 2 Kings 22:11 and ‘cut’ in Jeremiah 36:23 translate the same Hebrew word (qāra). Josiah was willing to listen and respond positively to the word of the Lord that he heard. He tore his clothes in distress and repentance, Jehoiakim cut the scroll in rejection of its message.

Josiah then arranged for a committee composed of five of his top advisors (Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam the son of Shaphan, Achbor the son of Michaiah, Shaphan the scribe, Asahiah the king’s attendant) to ‘inquire of the Lord’ concerning the contents of the book. ‘Inquire’ seems to have meant to seek oracular guidance from a prophet (1 Kgs 22:5-6; 2 Kgs 3:11).

22:14-20 Huldah’s oracle

The delegation went to see Huldah the prophetess. She was the wife of Shallum the keeper of the wardrobe (in the Temple or the palace?) and was therefore well-connected and well-known at the court. She is one of several female prophets in the Old Testament, the others being: Miriam (Ex 15:20), Deborah (Judg 4:4), Noadiah (Neh 6:14) and Isaiah’s wife (Isa 8:3). It is strange that the commissioners did not consult Jeremiah, whose ministry had begun five years earlier in the thirteenth year of Josiah (Jer 1:2).

Huldah’s oracle falls into two parts ( 2 Kgs 22:16-17, 19-20) , each preceded by an instruction that what followed was to be communicated to Josiah:

22:15 ‘And she said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Tell the man that sent you to me.’

22:18 ‘But to the king of Judah which sent — you to inquire of — the LORD, thus shall ye say to him, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, As touching the words which thou hast heard’

She begins by describing Josiah as ‘the man that sent you.’ Perhaps this was a reminder to the Near Eastern despot that in the sight of the Lord he was just ‘a man.’

Public Fate

The first part of the oracle deals with Jerusalem and the people of Judah. First, Jerusalem and its inhabitants are given notice that because they have not exclusively worshipped YHWH then the curses that are found in the book (Deut 27 & 28) will come upon them. There is no call for repentance in order that disaster might be averted. Their worship of other gods has provoked the anger of YHWH to such an extent that the judgement is certain. There will be no escape. God’s wrath ‘shall not be quenched.’

Personal Future

The second part of the oracle addresses King Josiah. He is given an assurance (introduced by ‘therefore’ 22:20) that because his heart is tender and that he has humbled himself before YHWH, has torn his clothes and wept and has ‘heard’ (listened and acted upon’) the message of coming destruction, he will be gathered into his grave in peace. Although not explicitly stated it seems likely, from subsequent events, that Huldah advised Josiah that should he lead the people back to obedience to YHWH then there would be a temporary stay of judgement. Joshua therefore went on to initiate national reform in the knowledge that it would not stop the inevitable judgement and on the understanding that it would not fall during his lifetime; he would have a peaceful death before it came to pass. This seems to contradict the violence of his death as recorded in 2 Kgs 23:29-30.

See my post ‘The Death of King Josiah of Judah‘

Josiah had sent the delegation to the respected prophetess Huldah in order that she might authenticate the scroll. This she did by a word from YHWH. It seems that from this point forward the written word assumes greater importance. The importance of the temple and its rituals seems to recede (23:27b), it will be of no use during the exile anyhow. Brueggemann (2000, p.550) observes:

‘…it is clear that Huldah’s prophetic function is to enhance and reinforce the Torah scroll. Everything turns on “the words of the scroll” (22:16). The threat against the city, she pro-
claims, is rooted in the scroll and is simply articulated by Huldah. The assurance to the king is because of “the words you have heard,” words of Torah (22:18). Clearly Huldah as a prophetess has no autonomous function or voice, but is dependent on the Torah…’

23:1-3 Making a covenant

Josiah called the elders of Judah and organised a great assembly at the Temple at which all the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem, both ‘small and great’ were present. It is not known exactly what function the ‘elders’ (tribal and family heads) had during the monarchy but they must have had a degree of authority in their communities and involvement in local issues.

During the assembly the torah scroll which had turned up in the Temple was read aloud. The public reading of documents was important in the ancient Near East where many people were illiterate. In view of the whole nation Josiah stood near a pillar in the ‘house of YHWH’, probably on a platform, and made a covenant before YHWH, to follow his commands, statutes and decrees with all his heart and soul. The people pledged obedience also. Thus Josiah officiated at a public religious act that did not involve Temple liturgy or sacrifice.

N. B. Covenant-making was a familiar concept in ancient Israel. In the Old Testament we read that God made covenants with individuals (Adam, Abraham, Moses, Aaron, David and Phinehas) and also with his special people, Israel. The most famous were the Mosaic covenants at Sinai (Exod 24:1-8) and Moab (Deut 29:1). There was also covenant-making by Joshua (Josh 24:1-28), Jehoiada/ King Jehoash (2 Kgs 11:17) and now by Josiah. In the Old Testament three types of relationships are called covenants: friendship (1 Sam 18:1-4), marriage (Mal 2:14) and international treaties (1 Kgs 5:12; Ezek 17:14). It is the latter type of covenant that is in view as regards the relationship between Israel and its national God YHWH.

23:4-20, 24 Purging Judah’s worship

2 Kgs 23:4-20 gives a catalogue of activities carried out by Josiah. It lists a series of extreme measures aimed at wiping out any religious practice that did not conform to the covenantal Yahwism of the book of Deuteronomy. 2 Kings gives the impression that these activities were influenced by the torah scroll that was found in the Temple (23:24). It is likely, however, that vv. 4-20 are a parenthesis giving details of religious cleansing that had already taken place long before the finding of the scroll in the eighteenth year of Josiah’s reign. According to the 2 Chron 34:3-7 account it was ‘in the twelfth year he began to purge Judah and Jerusalem…’ (34:3).

This inventory in 2 Kgs 23:4-20 falls into two parts; a) vv. 4-14 – purges in Judah and Jerusalem b) vv. 15-20 – purges in Samaria (the territory of the former Northern kingdom of Israel)

It is startling to read the wide range of idolatrous practices present in Judah until at that time and which were tolerated even in the temple and its precincts. They included worship of Baal, Asherah, Molech, the sun, astral deities and also three deities that in 23:13 are said to have been introduced by Solomon; Ashtoreth, Chemosh and Milcom. Equally startling is the passion and zeal, along with the ruthlessness and efficiency, with which Josiah eliminated these cults and their functionaries (23:7). He even entered the territory of the former state of Israel (ended 722 BCE) which was officially part of the Assyrian empire, then in decline.

23:21-23 The Passover

Until this point the author of 2 Kings has been reporting negative activities of Josiah under the influence of the torah scroll found in the Temple. These verses briefly note the only positive act of of reform by Josiah in the 2 Kings account of his life. This was a celebration of the Passover held at Jerusalem in Josiah’s eighteenth year. Much greater detail is given in 2 Chronicles chapter 35. According to 23:22 no such Passover had been observed in the days of the judges or of the kings of Israel and Judah. In fact, the previous occasion on which a Passover was celebrated is recorded in Josh 5:10.

23:25 A positive verdict on Josiah

After a further summary of Josiah’s purges (v24) which are said to have been in accordance with what was written in the law-book the author proceeds to give a glowing verdict on Josiah. He views him as the model king, there was none before like him, neither will there ever be another after him. Similar things were said of King Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:3-6) and of Moses (Deut 34:10-12). Josiah ‘turned to the LORD with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might’ (23:25). That seems fairly close to fulfilling the initial obligations of the Shema in Deut 6:5: ‘And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.’

23:26-27 A negative verdict on Jerusalem

The narrator has bad news for us. In spite of all the good that Josiah did, and the esteem in which he was held by the Lord, these were not sufficient to outweigh the harm done by one man, his grandfather Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:1-18). The disobedience to God’s law and the sins that he instigated have been so serious that nothing, not even Josiah’s piety and merits, can reverse the destruction that will come upon Jerusalem and Judah.

23:28-30 Josiah’s death

Josiah intercepted an Egyptian force at Megiddo and was mortally injured in battle.

See my posts:

King Josiah of Judah in 2 Chronicles

The Death of King Josiah of Judah

King Josiah of Judah – Bibliography