Why It’s Important to Read the Whole Bible: Manasseh
I’m actually a bit shocked I haven’t written about this before. Seriously. Shocked. I mean, I’ve been doing theology posts since 2006, here. My control panel tells me I’ve written more than a hundred and fifty theology posts. How could I not have written about Manasseh?
Quick recap: Hezekiah, one of the best of the “good kings” of Judah (second perhaps to Josiah), was told by Isaiah that he was going to die. Hezekiah went all emo and begged for a reprieve. God listened and extended his life by fifteen years. During that time, Hezekiah fathered his heir, and one of the worst kings of Judah, named Manasseh.
During Hezekiah’s reign, all the vestiges of pagan worship had been stripped from the kingdom. Manasseh brought it all back, including the worship of Molech, which involved placing babies into scalding bronze pots. Manasseh did this with one of his own sons. Not a good dude. One of the summaries of his reign was this:
2 Kings 21:16 (ESV)
16 Moreover, Manasseh shed very much innocent blood, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another, besides the sin that he made Judah to sin so that they did what was evil in the sight of the LORD.
In fact, Manasseh did so much wrong that he was basically the straw that broke the camel’s back. God had had enough and warned that because of everything Manasseh did in exemplifying the consistent idolatry of Judah (with rare exceptions like Hezekiah and Josiah), the kingdom would be going down:
2 Kings 21:10-15 (ESV)
10 And the LORD said by his servants the prophets, 11 "Because Manasseh king of Judah has committed these abominations and has done things more evil than all that the Amorites did, who were before him, and has made Judah also to sin with his idols, 12 therefore thus says the LORD, the God of Israel: Behold, I am bringing upon Jerusalem and Judah such disaster that the ears of everyone who hears of it will tingle. 13 And I will stretch over Jerusalem the measuring line of Samaria, and the plumb line of the house of Ahab, and I will wipe Jerusalem as one wipes a dish, wiping it and turning it upside down. 14 And I will forsake the remnant of my heritage and give them into the hand of their enemies, and they shall become a prey and a spoil to all their enemies, 15 because they have done what is evil in my sight and have provoked me to anger, since the day their fathers came out of Egypt, even to this day."
Manasseh’s reign was so disastrous that even Josiah’s reforms could not overcome God’s wrath on Judah. (In fact, Josiah’s tenderheartedness earned him a reprieve, in that he died before the disaster struck.)
What does this have to do with my post title for today? (Theology Thursday would normally be up there, but I left it off for brevity.)
As you probably know, I’m a Bible reader. I read the whole Bible once per year (last year I read the OT once and the NT twice), and have for the past five or six years. The really great thing about reading the whole Bible is that you start to notice parallels and passages that fill in more information on a particular topic.
Because in the case of Manasseh, there’s some major information almost completely missing from the Bible!!!! Thankfully, there’s at least a hint of what that information is:
2 Chronicles 33:18-19 (ESV, emphasis mine)
18 Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh, and his prayer to his God, and the words of the seers who spoke to him in the name of the LORD, the God of Israel, behold, they are in the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel. 19 And his prayer, and how God was moved by his entreaty, and all his sin and his faithlessness, and the sites on which he built high places and set up the Asherim and the images, before he humbled himself, behold, they are written in the Chronicles of the Seers.
Manasseh’s son Amon continued behaving badly after his father’s death, but Manasseh clearly ended on a positive note. For some reason, the author of 2 Kings omitted any mention of Manasseh’s repentance, and the author of 2 Chronicles didn’t feel that recording any detail about it was necessary. Granted, they were both writing in a time in which other sources existed. Still, it might’ve been nice to have more detail.
Interestingly, there’s an apocryphal book that records the supposed prayer of Manasseh. Authentic or not, it’s a good prayer:
Prayer of Manasseh v. 11-15
11 And now I bend the knee of my heart,
imploring you for your kindness.
12 I have sinned, O Lord, I have sinned,
and I acknowledge my transgressions.
13 I earnestly implore you,
forgive me, O Lord, forgive me!
Do not destroy me with my transgressions!
Do not be angry with me for ever or store up evil for me;
do not condemn me to the depths of the earth.
For you, O Lord, are the God of those who repent,
14 and in me you will manifest your goodness;
for, unworthy as I am, you will save me according to your great mercy,
15 and I will praise you continually all the days of my life.
For all the host of heaven sings your praise,
and yours is the glory for ever. Amen.
And that’s all I have to say about that.
Theology Thursday Lite: The Not-so-Lost Tribes of Israel
If you google “Ten Lost Tribes of Israel,” you’ll get more than 400,000 hits. It’s a popular topic, and there are fanciful imaginings aplenty about where they might be.
The problem is that the tribes were never lost. Recall that the Kingdom was divided in the days of Rehoboam and Jeroboam, and that ten of the twelve tribes sided with the Northern Kingdom of Israel. And this Northern Kingdom was subsequently sacked and taken into exile by the Assyrians in the 700s BC. And the Assyrians repopulated the area with other ethnic groups, and they intermarried with the Israelites who were left behind, leading to the mongrelized Samaritans.
But the crucial fact that’s often missed is that there were members of the Ten Tribes living in the Southern Kingdom of Judah. We know them as the faithful remnant of Israel. Check it out:
2 Chronicles 11:13-16 (ESV, emphasis and clarification mine)
13 And the priests and the Levites who were in all Israel presented themselves to [Rehoboam] from all places where they lived. 14 For the Levites left their common lands and their holdings and came to Judah and Jerusalem, because Jeroboam and his sons cast them out from serving as priests of the LORD, 15 and he appointed his own priests for the high places and for the goat idols and for the calves that he had made. 16 And those who had set their hearts to seek the LORD God of Israel came after them from all the tribes of Israel to Jerusalem to sacrifice to the LORD, the God of their fathers.
And this wasn’t the only time faithful Israelites fled from the Northern Kingdom. It happened again when Rehoboam’s grandson (Asa, a good king) was reigning.
2 Chronicles 15: 9 (ESV, emphasis and clarification mine)
9 And [Asa] gathered all Judah and Benjamin, and those from Ephraim, Manasseh, and Simeon who were residing with them, for great numbers had deserted to him from Israel when they saw that the LORD his God was with him.
Just some food for thought.
Theology Thursday, Friday Edition: Crack up the Stereo, and Uzzah
Once again I’m too lazy to do my Theology Thursday posts on, you know, Thursday. But I’m making up for it by covering two topics. That’s right…extra free theology. Though I suppose it’s all free on the Interwebs.
I participate in the Music Ministry at my church, as a member of the choir and a singer on the Worship Teams, even occasionally singing the special. (If you want to hear my personal favorite special, you can.)
As a member of the choir who sometimes hauls his music into the lab at work, I can let you know that, should you emulate me in this way, you may also end up with a label similar to “Seth the Tenor” on your laptop. My coworkers love me.
But, being part of the music at church, I’m aware of just how divisive music can be, and at the shocking lack of tact and grace extended by some folks who probably think they’re Christians. I speak, of course, of the complainers. And yes, I’m being a bit harsh by calling someone’s faith into question for objecting to something in the music. But it gets my goat, and I’ve found a verse that tells such people to muzzle it (well, maybe that’s exaggerating things):
1 Chronicles 15:16 (ESV, emphasis mine)
16 David also commanded the chiefs of the Levites to appoint their brothers as the singers who should play loudly on musical instruments, on harps and lyres and cymbals, to raise sounds of joy.
I don’t think anyone complained about the volume. Just a hunch.
Thinking of loud music reminds me of my first year in college, when we had our first dorm-floor meeting with our RA. One of the guys (who was from Palestine) asked how late he could “crack up the stereo.” Nobody on that floor ever said it any other way. Kind of like the way The Fair Elaine and I always say “derbis” instead of “debris,” after a lovely pastoral metathesis (a word I learned from Star Trek: The Next Generation).
But back to theology-ish ramblings. David commanded this loud music playing to distract from his evidently awful dancing. I jest, of course, but his wife wasn’t much impressed. Or maybe she was jealous of his moves?
And of course, this loud music and egregious dancing took place because the Ark of the Covenant was coming to Jerusalem. But this wasn’t the first time for the loud music, the dancing, or the Ark being brought toward Jerusalem. But the previous time went pretty badly.
1 Chronicles 13:7-10 (ESV)
7 And they carried the ark of God on a new cart, from the house of Abinadab, and Uzzah and Ahio were driving the cart. 8 And David and all Israel were rejoicing before God with all their might, with song and lyres and harps and tambourines and cymbals and trumpets.
9 And when they came to the threshing floor of Chidon, Uzzah put out his hand to take hold of the ark, for the oxen stumbled. 10 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah, and he struck him down because he put out his hand to the ark, and he died there before God.
Poor Uzzah, right? I mean, sure, he should’ve probably known not to touch the Ark, but was it really his fault? David 
realizes in Chapter 15 that the Lord “broke out” against them because they were transporting the Ark improperly. But still, to punish Uzzah for that mistake? A bit harsh?
Well, no. Because the Ark was coming from his house. And way back in 1 Samuel 7, when the Ark first came to Kiriath-jearim, a certain Eleazer son of Abinadab was given charge over it. Also noted as a son of Abinadab? You guessed it: Uzzah. I think it’s safe to assume that Abinadab was a Levite, and thus his sons would also be. They knew how the Ark was to be transported.
The whole situation is still nasty. I remember reading this as a kid and being mad that God would strike Uzzah like that. I found it comforting that David evidently agreed with me:
1 Chronicles 13:11 (ESV)
11 And David was angry because the LORD had broken out against Uzzah. And that place is called Perez-uzza to this day.
And that’ll pretty much do it for this week. For the first time in a while, I have no book review to post this week. So look for a couple next week. On the other hand, I’m a good nine weeks ahead of schedule in my Bible reading. So that’s cool. And I have somewhat of an idea for a Theology Thursday post next week. Maybe I’ll even post on Thursday this time. Or maybe I’ll drop my alliterative titles altogether and just post whatever, whenever. A Fflam is unpredictable!
Theology Thursday: More Evidence of Jephthah’s Innocence
This post is a follow-up to one I did back in February, wherein I argued that Jephthah (full story here), while being an idiot for making a rash vow, did not commit the abomination of human sacrifice by offering up his daughter as a burnt offering.
(You can now apologize for not reading that post, and then go read it.)
I won’t recapitulate my whole argument here, but here’s the punch line: Jephthah’s daughter was dedicated to the Lord, for service in the tabernacle, in some capacity which precluded her from marrying and raising up descendants for her father. Thus the sorrow over her virginity.
But, in order for my thesis to hold true, a couple of things need to be at least weakly established:
- There were women who served in some capacity at the tabernacle.
- These women were unmarried. (And were perhaps forbidden to marry.)
So let’s take these points one at a time. First, were there women who served at the tabernacle? Yes.
Now, I have to point out that I’d read the two references on this numerous times and somehow completely missed the first one and barely noticed the second one. And I’ve read the Old Testament a half-dozen times. So don’t feel bad if you’ve missed one or both. First, we have Exodus (missed by me mostly because the section it’s in is among the more mind-numbing passages in all of Scripture):
Exodus 38:8 (ESV)
8 He made the basin of bronze and its stand of bronze, from the mirrors of the ministering women who ministered in the entrance of the tent of meeting.
So I guess those ladies weren’t particularly given to vanity, because they gave up their mirrors for the sake of the Tabernacle.
(Show of hands, please. Did anybody else reading this ever take note of it? I missed it in at least six read-throughs, two go-rounds with an audio Bible, and listening to verse-by-verse teaching through Exodus. Missing it actually took effort.)
And the other reference, which spurred this post, and which I’d noticed but not dwelled on before, is this:
1 Samuel 2:22 (ESV)
22 Now Eli was very old, and he kept hearing all that his sons were doing to all Israel, and how they lay with the women who were serving at the entrance to the tent of meeting.
So that’s two solid references to women serving at the Tabernacle. Now, I do have to admit that both references are to them serving at the entrance of the Tabernacle, not in it. Still, they’re somehow attached to it.
But were these married women? I have only one argument here, and it has to do with the amorous activities of Eli’s sons, Hophni and Phinehas. Because they were evidently fishing in the company pond. And here’s my main point:
If the women were married, Hophni and Phinehas would have incurred a death sentence for adultery.
Now, of course, they were committing adultery, or at least Phinehas was, because he was married. So wouldn’t he have been liable for the death penalty in this regard? Well, I’m not certain. The Law seems to only prescribe it in the case of a man seducing another man’s wife.
Deuteronomy 22:22 (ESV)
22 "If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel.
It’s fair to point out that the events of early 1 Samuel, we’re just getting out of the period of the Judges, and it was a very compromised time. Hophni and Phinehas were abusing their positions as priests in more than one way (taking more than their share of the sacrificial meat). And who was going to bring them to justice? They were pretty much in charge.
Still, I think that if these were married women, there would’ve been more of a stink raised about it. Jealous husbands probably wouldn’t have taken it sitting down. I’m not going to pretend this is anything like a rock-solid case, but it’s at least persuasive to me.
And just in case anyone’s forgotten, my whole point here was to at least raise the possibility that when Jephthah spoke of sacrificing (or dedicating) his daughter to the Lord, there may have been precedent for young ladies being dedicated to Tabernacle service.
And that’s pretty much as far as I can take the argument. There were women who served at the Tabernacle, and they were (from all appearances) unmarried. It would have been really helpful if the Law described more about how these women were chosen for this duty, but it seemed to dwell rather more on the duties of the men.
(If anyone has a reference I’ve missed, please enlighten me. I may have to call Steve Gregg about this one.)
BTW, I purposely neglected the case of Anna (Luke 2), who lived at the Temple as a widow from a young age. I think she might’ve been a special case.
Theology Thursday: Ruth, Yibbum, and Halizah
Well, I know that everyone probably looks at that title and knows exactly what I’ll be writing about today, but perhaps I should explain it for the very few who might be puzzled by it. (This is my recognition that I’m writing about something arcane. My blog, my rules.)
Ruth, of course, refers to the Book of Ruth, which I read last week. It’s an important book, establishing King David’s ancestry and giving us a glimpse of life under the Judges. (The Book of Judges really muddles the waters, making life in pre-monarchy Israel look really chaotic and violent.)
The book also shows us that the understanding of the Law has changed somewhat since the days of Deuteronomy. For instance, Ruth is from Moab, yet becomes the ancestor of David. The Law specifically forbade Moabites from entering the 
assembly of the Lord:
Deuteronomy 23:3 (ESV)
No Ammonite or Moabite may enter the assembly of the LORD. Even to the tenth generation, none of them may enter the assembly of the LORD forever
(BTW, I think the apparent contradiction can be explained in that Boaz was an Israelite, and since the father’s lineage is most important, David’s heritage would be considered Israelite. Just a guess, though.)
But the really interesting difference in the practice of the Law, to me (and I understand how this could totally not be interesting to almost anyone else), is the difference in the practice of Levirate Marriage.
And what is Levirate Marriage, you ask? Well, it goes way back to the whole Er/Onan/Shelah/Judah/Tamar thing in Genesis 38:
Genesis 38, the whole Judah and Tamar thing (New Revised Condensed Seth Version)
Er marries Tamar but is struck dead by God, leaving her childless. Judah (Er’s father) instructs Onan (Er’s brother) to marry Tamar and raise up children for his brother. Onan disobeys and earns the same fate as Big Bro. Judah, worried that Tamar will be the death of all his sons, doesn’t give her Shelah. So, she poses as a prostitute and seduces Judah (recently widowed). She gets pregnant.
So that’s the germ of the matter, and it’s later encoded into the Law in Deuteronomy 25:
Deuteronomy 25:5-6 (ESV)
5 If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. 6 And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel.
(The practice was evidently still prescribed in New Testament times, given that the Sadducees used it in their famous question to Jesus about the resurrection.)
But what if the brother doesn’t want to marry his sister-in-law? Well, then he gets publicly humiliated:
Deuteronomy 25:8-9 (ESV)
8 Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him, and if he persists, saying, 'I do not wish to take her,' 9 then his brother’s wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders and pull his sandal off his foot and spit in his face. And she shall answer and say, 'So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.'
And now you’re probably wondering what this has to do with Ruth, right? Well, it’s pointed out in Ruth that Boaz is a “redeemer,” which is the Hebrew word ga’al (or go’el). So he is in line to redeem Naomi’s property, including Ruth. He’s essentially taking the role of the brother in the Deuteronomy 25 law.
(Fun fact: ga’al is also the Avenger of Blood who is supposed to carry out vengeance for pre-meditated murder. So it wasn’t all inheriting land and marrying widows.)
Of course, Boaz isn’t the closest relative, so he sort of tricks the closer guy into giving up his claim. And what’s the symbol of giving up his claim?
Ruth 4:7-8 (ESV)
7 Now this was the custom in former times in Israel concerning redeeming and exchanging: to confirm a transaction, the one drew off his sandal and gave it to the other, and this was the manner of attesting in Israel. 8 So when the redeemer said to Boaz, "Buy it for yourself," he drew off his sandal.
So I guess what I’m wondering here is this: Is this “custom” a corruption of the original Levirate laws? Or is it something related but different, given that we’re not looking at brother/brother interaction?
And my answer? Well, I’m not really sure. I think it’s kind of both. It’s an extension of the broader redemption laws, and borrows from the Levirate law. (But I’m far from an expert here.)
Oh, right, I’m supposed to explain those two funky words in the title. Well, here it is:
Yibbum – Levirate marriage. I’m shocked it hasn’t come up in our word-of-the-day thing.
Halizah – The ceremony by which a widow and her husband’s brother could avoid marrying. (The shoe-removal and speech.)
Interestingly, Wikipedia informs me (and how could it be wrong?) that the Rabbis favored Halizah because of the general proscription against a man marrying his brother’s wife.
Next week, I’ll reveal new evidence that Jephthah did not sacrifice his daughter.
Theology Thursday Tidbit: Shibboleth
At some point I need to do a few posts on significant words and terms that have come down into our culture through the Bible. But for today, I’m going to go with a lesser-known one: Shibboleth.
Of course, the reason it’s a lesser-known term is that it comes from a fairly obscure passage. It’s Judges 12, after the more-widely-known “Jephthah’s Rash Vow” passage. To sum up the happenings, the Ephraimites got under Jephthah’s skin, threatening him with a burned-down house. Well, Jephthah went with a bit of his patented rashness and brought the hammer down on those short-sighted folks from Ephraim.
Judges 12: 5-6 (ESV)
5 And the Gileadites captured the fords of the Jordan against the Ephraimites. And when any of the fugitives of Ephraim said, "Let me go over," the men of Gilead said to him, "Are you an Ephraimite?" When he said, "No," 6 they said to him, "Then say Shibboleth," and he said, "Sibboleth," for he could not pronounce it right. Then they seized him and slaughtered him at the fords of the Jordan. At that time 42,000 of the Ephraimites fell.
So the clever men of Gilead employed a linguistic test to determine if they were dealing with an enemy. So, the narrow definition of “shibboleth” is such a linguistic test. But the term has also been broadened to basically any cultural test. So it could be asking a suspected imposter about a local sports team, or a supposed classmate about a memorable professor.
And that’s about it for today’s tidbit. Wikipedia has more if you’re interested.
Well, okay, I can’t just let it go like that. What if the Jephthah/Ephraim incident happened in America? Between New Yorkers and Bostonians?
The men of New York said, “Are you from Boston?” When he said, “No,” they said “Then say Market,” and he said, “Maaaket,” for he could not pronounce it right.
Or between Redskins fans and Cowboys fans?
The men of D.C. said, “Are you a Cowboys fan?” When he said, “No,” they said “The say Oil,” and he said, “Ohl,” for he could not pronounce it right.
Or between Oregonians and a bunch of ignoramuses from other parts of the country?
The men of Oregon said, “Are you less than intelligent?” When he said, “No,” they said, “Then say Oregon,” and he said, “Oragawn,” for he was a product of the public school system, and they issued him a good fustigation.
Not to rant about my thinking that a high school diploma should come with the ability to pronounce the names of all fifty states or anything. I mean, I’m not asking them to be able to properly pronounce Willamette or Sequim or Puyallup, you know?
This was really theology-y, wasn’t it?
Theology Thursday Lite: Promise Fulfilled
In case you weren’t aware, there are some people out there who believe that God hasn’t yet fulfilled all his promises to Israel. Certainly there are a lot of promises to deal with, but one of them involves the Promised Land. And this pretty much sums it up:
Joshua 21:43-44 (ESV, emphasis mine)
43 Thus the LORD gave to Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers. And they took possession of it, and they settled there. 44 And the LORD gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their fathers. Not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the LORD had given all their enemies into their hands. 45 Not one word of all the good promises that the LORD had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass.
Maybe I’ll deal with the promises to David when I come to them in my read-through. But the Land promises are definitely already fulfilled. Just thought I’d point that out.
Theology Thursday: Numbers in Numbers
I'll just come out and say it: I think the Book of Numbers gets a bad rap. And I think it comes from the title.
Did you know that the title "Numbers" comes from the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint) title of “Arithmoi”? In the Hebrew Bible, the title translates as "In the Wilderness."
Isn't that a more interesting title? It's certainly more fitting, given that most of the narrative details the reasons for the Wilderness Wandering and what happened during it. All the interesting stories from that time (mostly the Israelites complaining) occur in this book. 
But, unfortunately, the book opens with a half-dozen or so chapters of some of the most brutal reading in the Bible. Not so bad as 1 Chronicles 1-9, perhaps, but still rather dull stuff about the census.
After that, though, it's a mixture of laws and stories. It certainly has more interesting stuff in it than Exodus does.
So anyway, if you shudder at the thought of reading Numbers, push through those first few chapters (or skip them) and read on. There's good stuff in there.
Anyhow, sometimes a number is just a number. And sometimes it's not. Take this passage, for instance (emphasis on the number):
Numbers 14:21-23 (ESV)
21 But truly, as I live, and as all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD, 22 none of the men who have seen my glory and my signs that I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and yet have put me to the test these ten times and have not obeyed my voice, 23 shall see the land that I swore to give to their fathers. And none of those who despised me shall see it.
I started digging back through Numbers and Exodus, and I’m coming up short on testings. Here’s my list so far:
- Whining about Moses getting them in trouble in the no-straw-for-bricks incident (Exodus 5). (hat tip to my esteemed partner in pavement pounding)
- Whining at the Red Sea, when Pharoah’s army was closing in (Exodus 14).
- Whining about the bitter water at Marah (Exodus 15).
- Whining about food, before being given manna (Exodus 16). Keeping up a good whining pace here.
- Whining about water again. Shocker, I know (Exodus 17).
- The Golden Calf incident (Exodus 32).
- More complaining about food, specifically mentioning missing garlic and leeks, leading to the “quail coming out your nostrils incident” (Numbers 11).
- The bad report of the spies (Numbers 13-14)
So that’s a solid eight testings. I can come up with two other possibilities:
- The people ask Moses to speak to them in lieu of hearing from God directly (Exodus 20).
- Miriam and Aaron complain about Moses being God’s favorite (Numbers 12). Shocker that they’re all siblings, isn’t it?
I’m not sure either of these really qualify. In the first case, there’s no indication that God was angry about it. In the second, it wasn’t so much The People as Moses’ jealous older sibs. Though it’s interesting that all three involved in that incident die before the forty years are up.
So, does anybody have another testing I missed?
Of course, I had to look this up in some commentaries. Evidently, “ten times” can be interpreted as the way we’d use “a million times” these days. Basically, God was saying that the testing was constant.
On the other hand, I’m of a geekish persuasion (though I enjoy sports and can talk to real, actual people when I need to), so I’m inclined to look for the NUMBERS!!!
Any help?
Theology Thursday: Something to Sing About
Reading the Bible can be interesting sometimes, just trying to figure out what it is, exactly, I’m reading. There’s some history, which would seem fairly straightforward, but even then I know that this particular history was recorded for a reason, so there’s a didactic twist to it. And there are other apparent history portions that make me wonder if they’re written as history but intended only to teach a lesson.
And then there are the Epistles, where I’m conscious of reading someone else’s mail. And then there’s poetry. Reading Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and Job takes an extra bit of concentration sometimes, because the imagery and language style differ from Western Poetry.
And if the Epistles are like reading someone else’s mail, with all the challenges inherent there, what about Song of Songs? It’s like reading someone else’s love letters. Or even more than that, like spying on two lovers.
Throughout history, Blblical interpreters, uncomfortable with the idea that Song of Songs is basically about sex, have taken various approaches to allegorizing it. It’s about God’s relationship with Israel! It’s about Christ and the Church!
Yeah, it’s about sex. Which isn’t a bad thing, of course, because it’s nice to have a straightforward approval given, in the Bible, for sexuality in its proper place.
And yet, I’m still not sure what to make of it. I mean, it’s supposedly a celebration of married love, but isn’t it ostensibly penned by Solomon? Of the seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines? Doesn’t the whole polygamy thing dilute, somewhat, the specialness?
Then again, maybe I’m missing the point. Any tips on interpreting this book?
By the way, let the record show that I have now officially blogged about Song of Songs. One more crossed off The List, four more to go!
(Oh, and if you’re wondering why I’m in Song of Songs in February, it’s because I’ve been reading a chapter per day of Psalms and the other Poeticals. I’m saving Job for last.)
I believe I’m now out of topics for the foreseeable future, though I have a few theology books I could finish up and review. But if you wanted to lob me a topic, now would be a good time. (Use the Suggest a Topic!!! link!)
Theology Thursday: Redeemed
Back on New Year’s Eve, I engaged in a short debate-ish thing with my Esteemed Partner in Pavement Pounding about Jephthah, and specifically about whether he sacrificed his daughter in Judges 11. (Whoa, I just totally pulled that chapter reference out of my head! Sweet!) I took the negative proposition, that Jephthah did not sacrifice his daughter, though the wording of the passage seems to indicate he did. (You can go read it if you want. I’ll wait.)
Mostly my position is based in logic. And it goes like this:
- God does not approve of human sacrifice
- God approved of Jephthah (Hebrews 11)
- Therefore, Jephthah did not engage in human sacrifice
But then, a couple of weeks ago, I came across an additional bit of support for my position. (By the way, you’d probably like to know what I think Jephthah did sacrifice, right? The short answer is something acceptable.)
My new evidence came from Exodus 13, when the Lord commanded the consecration of the firstborn. Here’s the passage:
Exodus 13:12-13 (ESV):
12 you shall set apart to the LORD all that first opens the womb. All the firstborn of your animals that are males shall be the LORD’s. 13 Every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, or if you will not redeem it you shall break its neck. Every firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem.
The “shall be the LORD’s” part seems to indicate that they would be sacrificed. But not all species would be sacrificed. Only clean animals. Others would be redeemed with a lamb. And firstborn sons, in particular, were consecrated to the service of the Lord (see Numbers 3), though later the tribe of Levi was taken for that service (but all firstborn sons of other tribes still had to be redeemed).
But my main point here is that an Israelite couldn’t offer just anything to God. Even when bringing a clean animal to sacrifice, it had to be spotless. God seemed to be very particular about what could be offered.
In this passage, the example of a donkey is given. Checking Leviticus 11 (a lot of 11th chapters in this post), we note that the donkey doesn’t have cloven hooves, so it’s unclean. It has to be redeemed (or throttled, apparently).
So, back to Jephthah’s case. He promised to offer what came out of his tent to the Lord. But he was an Israelite, and knew that he could only offer something clean. Anything unclean, he would have to redeem. But it would still belong to the Lord.
So, Jephthah’s daughter would have been redeemed, but would have been consecrated to the Lord. If this is so, and she was dedicated to service, she may not have been able to marry. This makes a good deal more sense when one considers that she lamented not her impending death, but rather her virginity. Jephthah’s grief would be explained by his knowledge that his line would end with her, since she was his only daughter.
This also seems to match the chronology of Judges 11, as one of the concluding verses says this:
Judges 11:39 (NKJV, just because it’s more word-for-word)
39 And it was so at the end of two months that she returned to her father, and he carried out his vow with her which he had vowed. She knew no man.
It might be stretching things a bit, it seems the “she knew no man” happened after Jephthah had fulfilled the vow.
BTW, I’m comfortably out of the mainstream with my interpretation here. Most commentators think that in the time of the Judges, the Law wasn’t observed particularly well, and so resorting to human sacrifice wasn’t be all that surprising, and Jephthah was honored for keeping a painful vow. But the writer of Hebrews doesn’t mention the sacrifice at all, so I think my explanation fits.
Now that we’re done with that, I’m shocked that my feeble little brain is just now really connecting the redemption of the firstborn with the fact that mankind was redeemed by the Lamb of God. The unclean redeemed by the clean. The broader idea of redemption by a lamb/bull is pretty well documented, but this specific idea is just now settling in for me. Guess I need to keep reading.