This is a statue of Elijah erected at Mt. Carmel

By Elijah I am referring to the Butcher of Baalites, the Killer at Kishon, the Annoyer of Ahab, the one, the only (his words not mine) prophet of the LORD.  In the other corner we have the enemies of the LORD, the purveyors of perversity, the ransackers of righteousness, the malevolent malcontents, Ahab and Jezebel and the prophets of Baal.

In the display on Mount Carmel in 1 Kings 18:20-40, Elijah squares off against the prophets of Baal who not only represent Baal but also represent their rulers Ahab and Jezebel at whose table they eat (at least according to 1 Kings 18:19).

More is going on in this scene than may be gleaned at a glance.  Elijah implies two things by calling for this gathering at all.  First, by demanding that the people of Israel chose between the LORD and Baal, Elijah excludes the options of religious relativism and syncretism.  This wasn’t just a showdown to see which God was stronger, it was call to the people of Israel to choose whom to follow.

Further, by this same demand, Elijah also excludes what today we call religious tolerance or coexistence.  As events play out, the severity of this exclusion becomes more apparent through Elijah’s words, method of sacrifice, and actions.

Elijah’s words are used to mock Baal and his prophets through a series of explanations as to why Baal has not yet responded to his prophets invocations.  According to Elijah, Baal may be day dreaming or sleeping or gone on a trip or relieving himself.  His words prompt the prophets to progress from their chanting and dancing to wailing and acts of self-mutilation that resulted in gushing blood.

When Elijah begins preparing for his own sacrifice, he repaired the altar of the LORD that had been demolished.  He then dug a trench around the altar and had water poured over the altar three times soaking the wood for the fire, the sacrifice itself, and the ground around the altar including the trench which was filled.

Unlike the Baalites, Elijah does not chant or dance or wail or bleed.  He makes a request to the LORD for the LORD to:

1. show himself God in Israel
2. show that Elijah is his prophet
3. show that this whole display was the LORD’s idea
4. show that the LORD is God
5. show that the LORD has turned back the hearts of the people

And unlike the Baalites, Elijah is met with an immediate response of consuming fire; fire that burned up the offering, wood, stones, dust, and water.  This overkill response to Elijah’s overkill demonstration with the water was a further mockery of Baal and his prophets.

Then there was Elijah’s massacre of all of the prophets of Baal after bringing them to Kishon.

Through smack talk, humiliating displays, and slaughter, Elijah, as the LORD’s prophet, made clear that Baal and his followers would not be tolerated in Israel, not even as a separate coexisting group.

Of course, then he ran away from Jezebel.

For more on the royal couple and the complicity of the people of Israel, see here.

For more on the relationship of Ahab and Jezebel, peek over here.

Solomon is famous for his wealth, his wisdom, and his women.

Certainly, the picture of his wealth is the extravagance of his palace and his Temple.  His wisdom and his women, however, are more fluid, more intertwined and are, in fact, inversely proportional.

We see Solomon’s request for wisdom in 1 Kings 3:9-12:

9 “Give your servant therefore an understanding mind to govern your people, that I may discern between good and evil, for who is able to govern this your great people? 10 It pleased the Lord that Solomon had asked this. 11 And God said to him, “Because you have asked this, and have not asked for yourself long life or riches or the life of your enemies, but have asked for yourself understanding to discern what is right, 12 behold, I now do according to your word. Behold, I give you a wise and discerning mind, so that none like you has been before you and none like you shall arise after you.”

The we see in 1 Kings 11 that he “loved many foreign women” and eventually had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines.  Whatever your take on polygamy, that’s a bit much to handle.  With three hundred sixty-five days in a year and a thousand anniversaries, someone is going to end up with hurt feelings.  He must have had the flower shop on speed-dial, and half his wealth must have been spent on apology gifts.

All this is in direct defiance of Deuteronomy 17:17 which instructs that when Israel finally gets a king, that king had better keep his wife collecting addiction in check or his heart will be turned away from the LORD.  This is, of course, exactly happened to Solomon’s heart in the course of his “gotta marry’em all” campaign.  Solomon “went after” Ashtoreth of the Sidonians, Milcom of the Ammonites, Chemosh of the Moabites, and Molech, building altars and making sacrifices to the gods of his wives.

So the question is…the question that I’ve never heard anyone ask, the question that plagues my sense of common…sense… The question is:  If Solomon was as wise as the text proclaims him to be, how was he so foolish as to bind himself to a thousand women from various cultures with differing beliefs and allow himself to be oriented away from the God who gifted him with the “wisdom” he now abandons?  Or more succinctly, how can such a wise man, in his wisdom, abandon wisdom?  And perhaps more succinctly still, how can a wise man be so foolish?

For profile on Solomon’s life, click here.

For a pondering of Biblical polygamy, pop on over here.

“Ishbosheth is Slain” from the Maciejowski Bible

Contrasting with the previous post about David’s murderous ways, this post takes a look at the kindness and compassion of David.  I know, I know…he’s complicated.

2^nd Samuel opens with David learning of the deaths of Saul and Jonathan.  In 1^st Samuel, Jonathan was depicted as David’s closest friend who saved David’s life from Saul’s murderous machinations.  The reader will not be surprised to witness David’s grief over Jonathan’s death.

The reader will be surprised by David’s lament over Saul’s death, that is, if the reader is reading rightly.  In chapter one of 2^nd Samuel, we see David’s lamentation.  Both Saul and Jonathan are mentioned four times in the lament.  His displeasure was so great at the news of their deaths that he had the messenger killed, though in fairness, the messenger had claimed to have assisted in Saul’s death.

Later, in chapter four, when two brothers kill Ish-Bosheth, another son of Saul who was ruling Israel after the deaths of Saul and Jonathan, and bring his head to David as a gift, David is not pleased.  In fact, his response was to have the brothers put to death.

Also mentioned in chapter four, but the focus of chapter nine, was Mephibosheth, Jonathan’s crippled son who lived in hiding fearing death at David’s hand.  David actually sought out descendants of Saul and Jonathan to give back to them Saul’s family property.  In the case of Mephibosheth, David also invited him to eat at the king’s table.

While this preference for Jonathan and his line makes sense in light of their friendship, David’s lament over Saul’s death and anger over Ish-Bosheth’s murder suggest a different motive.

Reflecting back on David’s refusal to kill the LORD’s anointed, i.e. Saul, in 1^st Samuel, and viewing that as an attempt to keep anyone from killing the LORD’s new anointed, i.e. David, David’s kindness to the line of the previous king may have been an attempt to set a precedent for the treatment of deposed kings in the event he was forced from the throne.

In summation, I suppose even David’s kindness is wrought with death and intrigue.  As I said, he’s complicated.

For more on Ish-Bosheth, click here.

For a look at Ish-Bosheth and Mephibosheth in 2^nd Samuel and 1^st Chronicles, click here.

For a Mephibosheth hymn, take a gander over here.

In addition to leading David’s army to victory on multiple occasions, Joab may have been David’s hitman.  Let’s look at three instances described in 2^nd Samuel that illuminate Joab’s nature.

First, in 2^nd Samuel 3, after Saul’s death, David’s rise to power in Judah, and fighting between David and Saul’s son Ish-Bosheth of Israel, Abner, the military leader of Israel to the north and Joab’s counterpart, defects to David.  According to the text, upon learning of Abner’s defection, Joab intercepts the traveling Abner and kills him.  The text is clear in pointing out that David had no forehand knowledge of Joab’s intent to kill Abner.

Second, in 2^nd Samuel 18, Absalom, after he has murdered David’s eldest son, has usurped David’s throne, and has made war with David gets his head stuck in a tree as he is riding on his mule.  When news of this incident reaches Joab on the battlefield, Joab, after insulting the messenger, quickly impales Absalom with three javelins.  We are reminded by the messenger, as he describes the situation to Joab, that David had given instructions not to harm Absalom.

Third, in 2^nd Samuel 20, David instructed Amasa, who had been made captain of the army by Absalom and was Joab’s cousin, to pursue Sheba, the leader of the current rebellion.  Amasa delayed in carrying out his orders.  Upon meeting up with Joab later during the pursuit of Sheba, Joab, with one deceitful left-handed jab to the gut, kills Amasa.  No mention is made of David’s response to Amasa’s delay.

In all three scenarios, Joab had a motive to murder.  The defecting Abner was a potential threat to Joab’s military position.  Absalom would likely have had Joab executed once David was defeated.  Amasa was another threat to Joab’s position.

Additionally, David also had a motive for murder.  Abner had been the military leader of David’s enemy, and his defection may have been a trick.  Absalom had killed his eldest son, taken his kingdom, and was currently seeking his life.  Amasa had delayed obeying David’s order allowing the rebel Sheba to potentially escape.

Though the text either explicitly or through silence denies David’s involvement in these deaths, Joab as hitman fits the story better than Joab as an unruly murderer that David continues to keep as his “right-hand” man.

One further clue to Joab as David’s hitman is the whole business with Uriah.  David sends Uriah to Joab with a note telling Joab to put Uriah at the front of the battle and then to draw the rest of the men back leaving Uriah to die.  Joab did this.  No motive is presented for Joab to have caused Uriah’s death.  At the very least, in this instance, Joab acted as David’s hitman, and this presents a lens through which we may view the previous three murders.

For more on Joab as a political maneuverer, see this page.

If you are considering Joab as a baby name, see this page.

“David Showing Goliath’s Head” by Caravaggio

David is portrayed in first and second Samuel as the anti-Saul.  As Samuel seeks out the new king in 1^st Samuel 16, he first believes David’s brother Eliab to be the candidate based on outward appearance.  Samuel is then rebuked by the LORD for this assumption and told that the LORD looks at the heart rather than the outward appearance.

While not explicitly stated, this would indicate that David was not an impressive physical specimen though the text does describe him as handsome.  Additionally, as the youngest son he had no inheritance, and as a shepherd he mostly lived outside with sheep.  David was not the outwardly exceptional man Saul was.

Neither was David’s heart like Saul’s.  Not only David’s superior heart the basis for the LORD’s selecting him, David exhibits behavior that displays the inward differences between Saul and himself.

In 1^st Samuel 17, David is indignant at Goliath’s taunting.  Rather than shying back because of Goliath’s greater size and experience, David faces Goliath in single combat trusting in the LORD to deliver victory.  In this same chapter David states that he has also fought “both lions and bears” in his role as a shepherd.

Although Saul repeatedly tries to kill David after David becomes too popular for Saul, David twice spares Saul’s life when presented with the opportunity to kill Saul.

Later in 2^nd Samuel 11-12, after David takes Bathsheba, has Uriah killed, and is confronted by Nathan, David not only acknowledges his sin, but turns his heart toward the LORD and is pardoned by the LORD.  Unlike Saul, David is allowed to remain king.

While David was outwardly unimpressive, inwardly according to 1^st Samuel 13:14, he was a man after God’s own heart.

For a differing opinion on 1^st Samuel 13:14:  see here.

For a four-part essay on the differences between Saul and David:  see here, here, here, and here.

“Saul Attacking David” by Guercino

Saul was the bees knees.  In the first two verses of 1^st Samuel 9 we learn three important facts:

–          Saul’s father was wealthy

–          Saul was significantly taller than the average man

–          Saul was a good looking dude

To challenge the above, the text in chapter ten establishes that Saul was a timid man who initially hid from his fate as king.  What this seems to indicate is that while externally, Saul seemed the man’s man, the ideal figurehead of strength and prosperity, internally, Saul was insecure and fixated on himself rather than focused on the LORD or his people.

Saul’s internal insecurity seems further confirmed by his actions in 1^st Samuel 13.  After waiting the agreed upon seven days for Samuel to arrive to make the pre-battle sacrifice to invoke the favor of the LORD, we see Saul decide to make the sacrifice himself instead of continuing to wait for Samuel because he feared that his army would desert him.  We know from Leviticus that the king making such an offering is outside the law, and 2 Chronicles 26:16-21 paints the picture of another king who tried to make an offering himself and was struck by the LORD with leprosy.

And again, Saul’s self-focus is established in 1^st Samuel 15 when Saul spares king Agag and keeps the choice loot of Amalek, doing what he thinks is best instead of devoting everything to destruction as he was instructed to do.  Further, Samuel seems aware of Saul’s insecurity as in 1^st Samuel 15:17 he states, “Though you are little in your own eyes, are you not the head of the tribes of Israel?”

At this point the LORD rejects Saul as king.  Instead of repenting, Saul merely acknowledges his sin and continues to act out of insecurity and self-interest as displayed in his repeated attempts on David’s life, in his inquiry of the medium of Endor, and ultimately in his suicide.

Saul is like a foreshadowing of the whitewashed tombs of the Gospels in that he has the appearance of perfection but is inwardly corrupt.  His strong exterior was ultimately destroyed by his weak interior.

For more on the LORD’s rejection of Saul:  click here.

For a Jewish take on the person of Saul:  click here.

The above painting is titled “The Foolish Vow” and is by the painter Slavujac.

Jephthah, in Judges 11, makes a rash vow, and his only child, his daughter, pays the price.  What debate prevails concerning this passage seems to be focused on the nature of the price paid by the daughter.  Was she burned as an offering to God?  Instead, was she dedicated to the LORD’s service for life?

Regarding this debate, which really is not intended to be the topic of this post, Deuteronomy 23:2 informs us that, “If a person is illegitimate by birth, neither he nor his descendants for ten generations may be admitted to the assembly of the LORD.”  As Jephthah was the son of a prostitute (Judges 11:1), neither he nor his daughter were eligible to be dedicated to the LORD’s service, so that option is out of play.

The point I wish to demonstrate is that Jephthah was a monster.  He was either an ignorant LORD-worshipper who killed his daughter or a prideful self-worshipper who killed his daughter.

That Jephthah made the vow is not in question.

That Jephthah’s daughter was the unintended victim of the vow is also not in question.

What is questionable is Jephthah’s response to his daughter becoming the victim of his vow.  Deuteronomy 18:10 states explicitly, “There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering.”  Either Jephthah was unaware of the law and followed through with his vow, or he was aware of the law and followed through with his vow anyway.

Even worse, Leviticus 5:4-6 allows the substitution of a female lamb or goat in the instance of making a rash vow.  Jephthah could have killed a lamb or a goat instead of his daughter and still, from a legal standpoint, been right with God.

Yet worse still, Leviticus chapter 27, which explains the majority of the laws concerning vows, allows Jephthah to redeem his daughter from the LORD for thirty shekels of silver.

In the two months between Jephthah’s realizing the tragedy of his vow and the return of his daughter from the mountains to be burned to death, he didn’t pursue an alternative to her death.  If he didn’t know the law, he was an ignorant religious leader who could have saved his daughter if he had sought out the law; however, if he knew the law and sacrificed his daughter anyway, not only did he directly disobey God, he knew the law provided for his backing out of the vow if he humbled himself and made the rash vow sacrifice or paid the redemption price.

Ergo, monster.

For a more thorough treatment of this argument, see this page.

After that, check out this follow up page that answers questions readers posted in response to the first article.

The above image is from http://www.thebricktestament.com

The book of Judges is full of isolated stories that all fall under the common theme of the rebellion-oppression cycle:  Israel rebels, becomes oppressed, cries out to God, God raises up a deliverer to free the people, the people forget God and rebel, and on and on.

Amidst the repetition of this cycle are a few reflections of past events in the history of the people of the covenant.  As depicted in the picture above, Judges 19 details the story of a mob seeking to rape the Levite guest of a man of Gibeah, that man handing over the women in the house instead of the Levite guest, the resulting death of the Levite’s concubine, and his decision to cut her into twelve pieces to send to the tribal leaders of Israel.

This disturbing tale strongly resembles that found in Genesis 19 which is the story of Lot protecting his angel guests from the mob in Sodom.  Sodom ends up being destroyed by God through a rain of fire.  Gibeah is also destroyed by fire after Israel sans Benjamin puts the inhabitants of the city to death.

Furthermore, this unified retaliation of the sons of Israel against those who raped their kinswomen bears similarity to the response of the literal sons of Israel in Genesis 34 to the rape of their sister Dinah.

Gideon has a golden ephod forged from the golden earrings looted from the Midianites by the people of the covenant.  Not only does this reflect back upon the early chapters of Exodus and the people’s association with Midian, but more significantly, this resembles Exodus 32 and Aaron having the golden calf forged from the golden earrings looted from the Egyptians as the people of the covenant fled Egypt.

It should be no surprise, then, that the people worshiped the ephod much as their ancestors had worshiped the calf.  In fact, this account may be included specifically to communicate that the people, even now under the law, had made no progress in living out their destiny as the chosen people of God.

For more on Judges 8 and the ephod, see here.

For more on Judges 19 and the atrocities presented within, mosey on over here.

Do we believe in miracles?

When we read Biblical accounts of strange or impossible happenings we bring into that reading our own beliefs and expectations.  Someone who is naturally a skeptic will interpret miracles through a lens of skepticism.  Likewise, a person who wants to believe will readily accept miracles at face value.  Neither position determines the reality of the miracle itself.

Events such as the burning bush, the various plagues that afflicted Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea, manna in the desert, and the fall of Jericho are significant occurrences in the history of the people of the covenant.  Skeptics find means to explain these away as usually as natural phenomena, albeit sometimes abnormal natural phenomena, while eager believers declare these spectacular events as literal fact without any examination at all.

One such event of significance is the occasion of the sun and moon remaining fixed in the sky for an extended period allowing the people of the covenant to continue to slaughter their enemies which is found in Joshua chapter ten.  Though this may appear to be one more instance in the series of miracles listed above, this particular episode stands out as unique.

Unlike the miracles that preceded it, this miracle was astronomical in scale.  Whether describing the movement of the sun and moon or the movement of the earth, this event is clearly bigger in scale than earlier miracles.

Furthermore, as an astronomical event, this happening would have been witnessed not only by Israel and the enemies they slaughtered, but by the entire world.  This means that other cultures are likely to have some record of either a long day or long night depending on where in the world they were located, and in fact, myths do exist in various cultures (at least Greek, Maori, and Culhuacan as far as I know) concerning an extended day/night.

Whether or not these texts refer to the same event is debatable.  And here is the point of this mess of a post:  the path to understanding miracles is a knife’s edge.  One may easily fall into lifeless rationalization on one side or thoughtless acceptance on the other.

The historical-critical method is a tool to be used to increase our understanding of this reality in which we find ourselves.  Equally important to remember is that the historical-critical method is not the creator or definer of truth.

When we explain away all the unexplainable phenomena we encounter, we have not miracles.  If we accept every fantastical occurrence we encounter as fact, miracles become normative and cease to be miraculous.  Miracles only remain miracles in the balance.

For a longer, better, deeper look at Joshua 10:1-15, look here and here.

For a more thorough approach to miracles and the historical-critical method, check this out.

The above depiction of Jericho is from the 14th Century Farhi Bible.

In pursuing an undergraduate degree in literature, I learned a few things about storytelling.  For instance, and contrary to much of modern storytelling, plot is important.  Conflict and conflict resolution, sometimes appearing in cycles throughout a tale draw the observer forward to the ultimate resolution of the primary conflict.  Furthermore, character development is a necessary part of manipulating the observer into caring about the outcome of the conflict, forcing the observer to feel they identify with the protagonist or protagonists more than they identify with the bringers of conflict.

What happens in chapter two of the book of Joshua is a mess.  Plotwise, events progress too quickly.  The spies show up at Rahab’s house, but Jericho PD immediately know where the spies are.  Somehow Rahab knew the king would send someone to investigate, so she preemptively hid the spies on the roof.  For some reason, the messengers from the king of Jericho don’t bother to search the home of the suspected spy harborer and are easily tricked by Rahab into leaving the premises.  All of this takes place in the first seven verses.

Admittedly, conflict exists, but that conflict is shown to be minimal.  As mentioned, the spies are hidden and in danger of discovery, but the messengers of the king, having journeyed to Rahab’s house, don’t bother to search where they are, but instead spend multiple days pursuing no one in the reaches outside the city.  We see minimal conflict and unbelievable resolution.

Really the only character development that occurs for the spies is the expository information we are given in verse one that the two men are spies of Israel.  These spies don’t even receive names.  Later, in chapter six, we do see that the spies kept their promise to spare Rahab and her family.  We also learn, over the course of events, that Rahab is a prostitute, that she is a traitor to her people, and that she believes the LORD has brought and will bring success to the people of Israel.  Nevertheless, while we know some of what these characters did, we never know who they are as people.

In our reading, we easily identify the spies and Rahab as the protagonists of this story because they seem to be the focus of the material.  We are wrong.  From a literary perspective, the spies are not people at all in this story but are merely a plot device.  Rahab may receive more focus than the other characters in this tale, but she is not a protagonist in the traditional sense.  As a prostitute, a deceiver, and a traitor to her people, she functions more as an antihero than a protagonist.

If this story is viewed as the tale of the noble Rahab who aided the just Israelites in their holy quest to conquer Jericho, it’s a literary disgrace.  However, taken as a later justification for Joshua sparing and marrying Rahab (as stated in the Talmud) or more generally for the inclusion of a Canaanite group among the people of Israel (which was forbidden), this tale makes a little more sense.

For more on Rahab, look here.

For a Jewish take on Rahab, look here instead.