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.

A few days ago, someone forwarded the following message to me with the picture to the right attached:

Cara Winship sent this out it is called: God’s hands.

I took this picture on Hwy 30, traveling to London City, KY. It has given me strength in the times of trouble. I feel I should share it with the rest of the world. I hope it is an inspiration to you. It just goes to show what we already know…. We have a God and he’s watching over us.

I e-mailed this picture to News Chanel [sic] 36. I was contacted by Meteorologist John James. He said that this picture of the sky is
showing up, in all states, around the world. He wanted to know where I was from and where I took it. He saw a similar picture taken in Texas He said this is amazing to him!

The picture is obviously faked, of course. It would be quite easy to do in Photoshop or GIMP. In fact, someone on the Urban Legends Reference Pages claims to have done it. And although hoaxes such as this usually don’t contain references to actual people’s names, the fact that there is no London City, KY, should be a clue as well.¹ But I didn’t want to focus on the picture or the hoax. Instead, I want to focus on the interpretation.

If one of us were to see such a vision in the clouds, we would be inclined to interpret it the way the forwarded e-mail does. Here are God’s hands reaching out to help us or comfort us.

But why should we immediately interpret it that way? Other interpretations are possible. Perhaps it is a sign that God is angry with us and is reaching down to punish us. The hands are here to crush us. It could be that the hands are holding a bowl of God’s wrath as in Revelation 16. When such a bowl is poured it, it certainly will not bring comfort.

I am not offering these interpretations because I am a pessimist. Instead, I am trying to follow the pattern set forth in the Bible. When prophets saw signs, they were just as likely — and perhaps more likely — to be signs of punishment than signs of promise. Think of Amos 7:7-9, where God showed Amos a plumb line. Amos could have looked at it an piously interpreted it as God’s building tool that indicated God was going to build something wonderful for Israel. Instead, it was a sign of judgment. Israel was found to be off-plumb, and therefore God was going to make Israel desolate.

Or take Jeremiah 1:13-19. When Jeremiah saw a boiling pot tipping over from the north, he could have interpreted it as a sign that God was providing food for his people. Surely a cooking pot has something to do with food! But God told him that the pot was a sign that God was going to bring an enemy against Judah from the north.

Certainly, there are signs of promise as well. I don’t mean to imply that those are not found in the Bible. But it seems to me that before we go interpreting something as a sign from God, we better take into account the fact that signs are just as likely to be negative. If we take everything as a sign of God’s love and comfort, all we are doing is stroking our spiritual egos.

1. There is a London, KY, but no London City. Highway 30 does run near London, and Lexington, KY, does have a Channel 36, although I could not find a John James on staff. This particular incarnation of this hoax appears to be tailored to a particular region. [back]

One the questions in the history of the priesthood is the reference of Ezekiel 44:10, which presents the Levites as going after idols when Israel went astray. On the basis of this sin, Ezekiel states that the Levites must be given a lower status in the cult and may no longer serve at the altar.

A number of scholars have seen this as a reference to Levites participating in the worship at high places prior to the reforms of Josiah. This doesn’t make much sense to me. After all, it was Deuteronomy that argued against worship at high places, and Deuteronomy seems to come from Levitical circles. Besides, Ezekiel does not seem to be particularly influenced by Deuteronomy, and I find it unlikely that he would have approved of Josiah’s reforms. After all, Josiah allowed Levites to be priests in Jerusalem, which would have meant Ezekiel’s priestly group would be forced to share the temple service with others.

Steve Cook did a great deal to further the discussion when he recognized that Ezekiel 44 is making explicit reference to the Levitical rebellion in Numbers 16-18.¹ It seems to me that Ezekiel is reading the situation in late preexilic Judah (c.620-586 BCE) through the lens of Numbers 16-18. The people of Judah are going astray, and the Levites — who have been granted leadership positions by Josiah — are participating in this idolatry. The Zadokites, on the other hand, did not participate in the idolatry (Ezek. 44:15). For more on my thoughts on the relationship between Numbers 16-18 and Ezekiel, see my post from last summer.

While Ezekiel creates the situation that we see in the postexilic period, with Zadokites serving at the altar and other Levites (both Aaronide and non-Aaronide?) serving as temple servants, what I am more interested in at this point is what the situation was before the exile. It seems to me that they had three groups: Levites that had come from the north, Aaronides who had always been in Judah, and Zadokites who are perhaps a subset of Aaronides. The question is, what were the Aaronides doing when Israel went astray?

It is interesting to note that already in Ezekiel the Zadokites are referred to as the “sons of Levi.” What I would like to know is whether Ezekiel was the first to apply this to the Zadokites. Would they have considered themselves Levites prior to the exile? The Levites as a priestly group seem to have very ancient origins, perhaps even going back to the pre-monarchic period. Would it have been necessary for the Zadokites to claim Levitical descendancy in order to be priests? At what point would this have been necessary?

I have to wonder whether the Zadokites came to ascendency because they were the main priestly group that was deported. Jehozadak was a priest taken into exile, and the formation of his name suggests a connection with Zadok. His son Joshua is the first high priest of the exilic period. If those exiled to Babylon were principally from Jerusalem and not the surrounding countryside, this would mean that it was the central priesthood that was exiled. Joshua 21 presents the Aaronides as living in the rest of Judah, and they may have made up only a small part of the priests in exile. The Levites, on the other hand, would have been serving in Jerusalem and some of them would have gone into exile as well. But it is instructive to note that the Chronicler’s history mentions a large amount of Zadokites returning from exile accompanied by a much smaller group of Levites.

If the Zadokites were the predominant group in exile, it is easy to see how they would have gained prominence over those left in Judah. Jeremiah had stated that the exiles in Babylon were the future of Israel, while those left in Judah were the bad fruit (Jer. 24). This could have led the Zadokites to see themselves as the future of the priesthood, especially with Ezekiel saying that they had remained faithful while the other priests had gone astray with Israel.

1. Stephen L. Cook, “Innerbiblical Interpretation in Ezekiel 44 and the History of Israelite Priesthood,” JBL 114 (1995), 193-208. [back]