Blue Cord

Revised Common Lectionary, Year C, Proper 12 (series reading)

The OT reading from the Revised Common Lectionary for this Sunday is Hosea 1:2-10. This is the theme reading, although the connection between this passage and the NT readings is not immediately clear (assuming there is one).

The Hosea is passage is well-known to most preachers. It would be hard to imagine a seminary class on the OT that didn’t deal with this text when covering Hosea. The danger with such familiar passages, of course, is that we allow our prior understanding of the text to take the place of doing the exegesis again. Because of that, I wanted to point out something that seems to me to be a surprising element in the text that a preacher might not have noticed in previous readings.

The first of these is the fact that Hosea names his first child Jezreel, because God is going to punish the Jehu Dynasty for the coup in Jezreel that brought them to power. This is an interesting statement, because the coup in Jezreel was originally done at the command of God through the prophet Elisha. A common way of dealing with this is by saying that Jehu went overboard when he killed everyone in the Omrid Dynasty, but this is not supported by the texts we have. In 2 Kings 9:7, Jehu is told specifically that he is to destroy the house of Ahab. It is hard to go overboard when you are told to destroy something, as destruction involves wiping something out completely.

It seems to me that the direction of theological reflection on this text seems to me to be the multiple voices that the Bible is presenting concerning Jehu’s coup. Hosea views the coup negatively, at least in the way it was carried out. The DtrH, on the other hand, views it positively. The question for preachers is how to hear both voices and allow each to have its say without privileging one text over the other. The canon does not set the texts at odds with each other, but neither does it resolve the tension. Preachers can draw on that tension to provide energy to their sermons.

I am a bit behind the curve on this one, but it doesn’t bother me much because my interests outside the OT are more Egyptological than Assyriological. Nevertheless, for those readers who have not heard about this, I wanted to offer a brief post on the Nabu-sharrussu-ukin tablet that has been making waves in the biblioblogosphere.  The news is reported in the London Times.

The story, in a rather simplified form, boils down to this. Michael Jursa, a researcher at the British Museum, has recently translated a Babylonian tablet from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, the king who attacked Jerusalem in 597 and 587 BCE and deported the people of Judah to Babylon. The tablet is a receipt for a donation to the temple, presumably so Nabu-sharrusu-ukin could claim the deduction on his taxes.  (If you think filing taxes is hard now, just think of what it must have been like to fill out a 1040 form in clay.)  The tablet reads as follows:

(Regarding) 1.5 minas (0.75 kg) of gold, the property of Nabu-sharrussu-ukin, the chief eunuch, which he sent via Arad-Banitu the eunuch to [the temple] Esangila: Arad-Banitu has delivered [it] to Esangila. In the presence of Bel-usat, son of Alpaya, the royal bodyguard, [and of] Nadin, son of Marduk-zer-ibni. Month XI, day 18, year 10 [of] Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.¹

The excitement comes from the fact that Jursa identifies Nabu-sharrussu-ukin, the chief eunuch, with Nebo-sarsekim, the chief eunuch in Jeremiah 39:3.  In that verse, Nebo-sarsekim is one of the officials at the head of Nebuchadnezzars army when it besieges Jerusalem.  The name appears in the form Nebo-sarsekim in the NIV but not the NRSV.  For the reason for this and a discussion of why the NIV is probably correct in this case, I direct you to Chris Heard’s excellent post.

It would be easy to over-state the implications of this, as it is always exciting to find a biblical figure mentioned in a non-biblical text from the same time period.  There are reasons to be cautious about this identification, and Chris Heard deals with those in the post mentioned above. 

But even if the identification of Nabu-sharrussu-ukin with Nebo-sarsekim is correct, it does not add much to our knowledge of the period.  All it suggests is that whoever wrote this section of Jeremiah knew the names of the Babylonian officials who attacked Jerusalem. The historical accuracy of names like this in document concerning the fall of Jerusalem is not surprising.  Those sections in Jeremiah and 2 Kings were written very close to the events they narrate.  While they certainly give their own interpretation of the events, the accuracy of their knowledge of names and places has not often been questioned.  It is when these documents are writing about events centuries before that most historians begin to wonder about their accuracy.

1. The translation presented here is taken from the London Telegraph.  Presumably the translation is that of Jursa, the researcher who made the initial reading. [back]

As I mentioned in the previous post, I preached today on 2 Kings 5.  Because I had not decided on which element I would focus for the sermon when I made the original post, I thought I would follow up here.

I choose to focus on the fact that in this passage God continually speaks through people far down the social ladder.  Elisha’s message is not delivered by Elisha, but by his servant.  When Naaman balks at following Elisha’s instructions, it is Naaman’s servant who points out that Naaman would have done something difficult if Elisha had asked, so he shouldn’t hesitate to do something easy.  And the most powerless figure, the Israelite slave girl, is the one who has the solution to Naaman’s problem in the first place.

This last figure is particularly interesting.  She has three strikes against her as far as people in the ancient Near East were concerned.  She is a woman, she iss a foreigner, and she iss a slave.  Yet she is the one through whom God speaks to Naaman initially.  Without her, we would have had no story to put in 2 Kings 5.

One additional element caught my eye in the passage.  This is the notice in v.1 that Yahweh had given Syria military victories.  I found that to me a remarkable comment for two reasons.  From the historical side, it represents a break from the standard Iron Age understanding that Yahweh was limited to Israel.  And from the theological side, this had to be a bit of a jab at Israel, since a large number of Syria’s victories had come against Israel.  The idea that Yahweh is fighting against Israel is very muted here, but it is certainly present.  It will come out later in full force, especially in the prophetic ministry of Jeremiah.

Revised Common Lectionary, Year C, Proper 9 (series reading)

I am scheduled to preach this Sunday at my home parish, All Saints’ Episcopal church in Stoneham, MA. Like many Episcopal churches, we are now using the Revised Common Lectionary. The RCL provides two Old Testament readings each week. One is a thematic reading that fits in with the epistle and gospel readings. The other is a reading that provides sequential readings in a particular book.

I am going to using the sequential reading for my preaching this week. It is taken from 2 Kings 5:1-14 (thanks to Duane for pointing out the typo). Having begun the exegesis for writing the sermon, I thought I would share some of my thoughts here. The passage in 2 Kings 5 is the story of Naaman, the commander of the Syrian army who comes to Elisha to be cured of his leprosy.

This passage contains some rather interesting features. First, it focuses on a foreigner and his act of faith in Yahweh. It is set in the middle of a number of stories focusing on Elisha, but Elisha is a secondary character in this story. Other than two short conversations with Naaman, he is a background character, though essential to the story.

Second, the story turns questions of power on their heads. The mighty leader of the army is striken with leprosy. The king of Israel is portrayed as fearing the king of Syria, who he thinks will attack if Naaman’s leprosy is not cured. He appears to forget that he has a prophet in his kingdom who can perform such wonders. The weak, on the other hand, are shown to be wise. The captive Israelite girl — a slave in a foreign land — is the one who has knowledge that can help Naaman. And when Naaman balks at washing in the Jordan, one of his servants has to point out his error.

There are several elements that I think provide rich possibilities for preaching:

• The faith of the foreigner contrasted with the lack of faith of those on the inside.
• The faith of the powerless contrasted with the lack of faith of the powerful.
• The simplicity of the act Naaman must do to be cured.
• The hospitality of Elisha, who cures the foreigner. In doing so, he provides comfort to the enemy.

Although it is not a part of the reading for this Sunday, the continuation of the story also has some interesting details. After being cured, Naaman says he will worship only Yahweh. In order to do so, he asks to be allowed to take two donkey-loads of Israelite soil back to Syria. Yahweh is the God of the land of Israel, so if you are going to worship Yahweh, you have to take some of that land with you.

I found it interesting that pered in v.17 is translated as ‘mule’ in every translation I could check. While it is clear that there were mules in the ancient world, it is not entirely certain that pered indicates a mule. A mule is the offspring of a male donkey and female horse, but interbreeding of animals was forbidden in Israel (Leviticus 19:19), although this does not mean it was not practiced. I wish I had my Koehler-Baumgartner lexicon out of storage right now to see what they have to say about pered.

On the other hand, it is clear why translators would want to avoid talking about Naaman taking an ass-load of dirt back to Syria. A mule-load definitely sounds better.

The OT reading from the Revised Common Lectionary for today included 1 Kings 19:19-21, which reads:

So [Elijah] set out from there, and found Elisha son of Shaphat, who was plowing. There were twelve yoke of oxen ahead of him, and he was with the twelfth. Elijah passed by him and threw his mantle over him. He left the oxen, ran after Elijah, and said, “Let me kiss my father and my mother, and then I will follow you.” Then Elijah?? said to him, “Go back again; for what have I done to you?” He returned from following him, took the yoke of oxen, and slaughtered them; using the equipment from the oxen, he boiled their flesh, and gave it to the people, and they ate. Then he set out and followed Elijah, and became his servant. (NRSV)

As I was listening to the reading, a question occurred to me: Why did Elisha kill the oxen? Was it a sacrifice or not?

When I got home, I checked the different translations. The ESV and NASB say that Elisha sacrificed the oxen, while the NRSV and NIV both say that Elisha slaughtered them.  The Hebrew does not provide much help here.  The verb used is zabakh.  This generally indicates a sacrifice, but also could be used for common slaughter of animals.

If this passage were from the priestly layers of the OT, it would be a moot point.  All slaughter of animals was considered a sacrifice in the priestly schema.  But Deuteronomy allows for the non-sacrificial slaughter of animals (Deut. 12:13-27).  Since the 1 Kings passage is part of the DtrH, this could be either.

But Deuteronomy also states that all sacrifice must be done in Jerusalem.  Elisha is from Abel-Meholah.  Although 1 Kings 19 does not state it explicitly, it is likely that the call of Elisha took place in or near his home town, not in Jerusalem.  If Elisha is being pictured following the Deuteronomic law, then what he is doing should not be considered a sacrifice.  I would say the NRSV and NIV have the better translation in this case.

But that leaves us with out original question: Why did Elisha kill the oxen?  If it was not a sacrifice, why did he do it?  Although the passage is not explicit, I think the clue to interpretation needs to come from Elisha’s request to kiss his father and mother before following Elijah.  The slaughter of the oxen and ensuing feast seem to be the fulfillment of that wish.

Now, if I really wanted to go out on a limb, I might argue that his request to kiss his father and mother and the feast that followed were part of paying homage to his departed ancestors, since his new life would be one that took place outside of his family.  I am not feeling that brave today, so I will offer that suggestion only as a possibility.