Biblical Limericks: He’s a Cut-Up

Remember: the tyrannical slave
who abuses others like a knave
will get all that he’s earned
when the master’s returned:
he’ll be dissevered with a sharp glaive.

Luke 12: 45 - 46

(Not-So) Biblical Limericks: Misquoting the Prophet

Some in the church are terrors, no doubt,
crushed reeds they will break with a clout.
To do this they’ll misquote
words that the prophet wrote
and smoldering wicks they will snuff out.

Isaiah 42: 3

Can Iron Break Iron from the North and Bronze?

I have, for the past couple of years, been preaching from the texts of the standard lectionary. However, after last week’s reading from Jeremiah 11, I’ve decided to take a break from the lectionary, at least for a few weeks, to focus on the “confessional” passages within the book of Jeremiah.

So for the next couple of weeks we’ll be immersing ourselves in the words of the prophet Jeremiah, in the world of 7^th century BCE, a time of political and religious turmoil. It will be helpful for us to have some understanding of the situation: The Assyrian Empire had been the dominant force in the area for many years. It ruled with an iron fist, conquering territories and nations. But now the Assyrian Empire was beginning to crumble, weakening from the inside. And the leadership of the kingdom of Judah tried to take advantage of that decline. A nationalistic, pro-independence movement gathered strength in the courts of the kingdom of Judah. During the rule of Josiah, this growing nationalism was expressed in a state theology, the worship of Yahweh.

In the 18^th year of King Josiah’s reign (622 BCE) – when he was 26 – the king ordered that the temple in Jerusalem be renovated. And it was during the restoration work that Hilkiah, the priest, found “the book of the law” and brought it to the king’s attention (2 Kings 22:8 – 10 / 2 Chronicles 34: 14 – 18).

We don’t know specifically what this “book of the law” was. Some have suggested that it was the Torah, the Pentateuch – that is, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible. Others suggest that it was just the single book of Deuteronomy. It seems likely to many biblical scholars that the “book of the law” was an early version of part the book Deuteronomy, which would eventually be completed during the years of Babylonian exile, along with the rest of the Torah. Others of a more suspicious nature suggest that the ‘discovery’ of this book was a convenient way for Josiah’s administration to introduce their political and religious reforms (and in that time and place, the two were nearly indistinguishable) in a way that validated them in the minds of the people.

Whatever this “book of the law” was, it certainly motivated King Josiah to a vigorous religious reform program in his kingdom (and even a bit outside of his own borders). The altars of Ba’al were torn down, incense altars were smashed, Asherah poles (sacred trees or poles set up near Canaanite religious sites, dedicated to the worship of the fertility goddess, Asherah , the consort of Ba’al (or sometimes, Yahweh...)) were pulled down. Idols were shattered, ground them to powder. His agents toppled the high places dedicated to the child sacrifices for Molech, and destroyed the places of worship of Ashtoreth and Chemosh that had been built by King Solomon. The priests who served at these religious sites were killed and their bones were burned in those places in order to defile and desecrate them. (2 Kings 23: 1 – 24 / 2 Chronicles 34: 1 – 33. Chronicles describes Josiah’s purification program as beginning before the discovery of the book of the law, but continuing and increasing afterwards…)

While we have no specific archaeological evidence of King Josiah reforms, seals and seal impressions found from that period show a transition from pictures relating to the astral cult - stars and the moon -  to names and dates – which may be evidence of Josiah’s reform away from polytheism to monotheism (Finklestein 288).

A side note here: If we are honest with ourselves and our reading of these passages we might have to admit that this religious / political reform program sounds very much like that of ISIS / ISIL. If we condemn the radical Islamic sect of our time, we may have to be willing to condemn Josiah and his administration. If we justify Josiah and his violent reformation, we may have to reconsider our denunciations of the violence perpetrated by ISIS.

Jeremiah was a young man when he was first called to prophecy, indeed he first objected, “I am only a boy,” (Jeremiah 1: 6) – though the Hebrew word “boy” here is somewhat more fluid than the English word. It can mean a young man of marriageable age, or old enough to serve as a soldier. Solomon referred to himself with the same word after he became king and was married (1 Kings 3:7). Jeremiah was probably about 13 years old when he was called to be the prophet of Yahweh (Lundbom 233).

The young prophet would then have been about 17 years old when “the book of the law” was discovered in the Temple and King Josiah launched his religious and political reforms. And while Josiah and his administration and the rest of the country celebrated the discovery of this book with an elaborate Passover festival, young Jeremiah found that he could not join with the rest of the revelers.

“Your words were found and I ate them,” said the prophet, referring (probably) to the discovery of the “book of the law.” “I ate them and your word was to me for joy.” I imagine that Jeremiah felt energized and lifted up by the discovery. The words of that book seemed to confirm his calling to “uproot and to break down, and to destroy and to overthrow, and to build up and to plant… “(Jeremiah 1:10) but even with that joy, he knew he couldn’t join in with Josiah and the other celebrants. Even though Josiah’s reforms and Jeremiah’s message overlapped somewhat, Jeremiah could not join in country’s enthusiastic celebrations.

“I sat not in the happy crowd and acted jolly
because of your hand, all alone I sat
for with indignation you filled me.” (Jeremiah 15:17 – Anchor Bible)

“I have not sat in the company of revelers
and made merry!
I have sat lonely because of Your hand upon me,
for You have filled me with gloom.”  (JPS)

And Jeremiah’s reluctance to join the celebration seems, in historical hindsight, a wise and cautious approach. Josiah’s religious and political reforms were enthusiastic and vigorously violent, but they were short lived. In the year 609 BCE, 13 years after the discovery of the “book of the law” during the Temple renovations, King Josiah went out to the battlefield at Megiddo to confront the army of Pharaoh Necho of Egypt, who was rising as a potential power against Assyria. And there, in a confrontation that historians and biblical scholars don’t fully understand, Josiah was killed, shot by Pharaoh Necho’s archers.

2 Chronicles tells us that: “Jeremiah composed laments for Josiah which all the singers, male and female, recited in their laments, as is done to this day; they became customary in Israel and were incorporated into the laments” (2 Chronicles 35: 25 – JPS).

Josiah was succeeded by his son Jehoaz, who was immediately deposed and exiled by Egypt and replaced by his brother, Jehoiakim. The political and religious reforms that Josiah launched were undone. The idols returned; the high places were rebuilt. Josiah’s work was overturned, and the prophet Jeremiah, who continued to speak his message in the name of Yahweh, became a persona non grata within the kingdom of Judah.

He begins this confessional passage with a pronunciation of woe for himself and his mother: “Woe to me, my mother, because you have bore me, a man of contention and a man of dispute for the whole earth “(15: 10 – Anchor Bible). Perhaps the prophet felt the weight of proverbial judgment weighing on him. “A shifty man stirs up strife, And a querulous one alienates his friends” (Proverbs 16:28 JPS). And he certainly felt alienated. He was aloof. He was cut off. His friends and family plotted to kill him. His co-workers among the priesthood beat him and had him arrested. He was a “man of contention,” causing trouble and stirring up resentment. He was a “man of sorrows.” Jeremiah complains that he is cut off from everyone.

It is helpful at this point to remember that Judaism marks things as holy by separating them; to be holy is to be different, to be separated from others. The Sabbath day is marked as a holy day by separating it from the rest of the week (Gerwitz). And in this same way Jeremiah was separated from the rest of the people.

“Yahweh said;
Have I not set you free for good?” (Jeremiah 15: 11 – Anchor Bible)

“Surely I will deliver you for a good purpose.” (NIV)

Jeremiah had been set apart– yes – cut off from the rest of the community. He had a work to do. He had a holy mission to accomplish. But this prophetic mission set him against the rest of the world, made him a man of contention. He was alone. Always alone. And though it can be helpful and restorative to be alone for a period of time, to get away from the noise and demands of social interaction, prolonged social isolation is a dangerous thing –physically and mentally. “Chronically lonely people have higher blood pressure, are more vulnerable to infection, and are also more likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease and dementia. Loneliness also interferes with a whole range of everyday functioning, such as sleep patterns, attention and logical and verbal reasoning” (Bond). Prisoners held in prolonged isolation begin to experience hallucinations and suffer mental breakdowns.

­­It is this isolated Jeremiah who calls upon God to remember and to take account of him and his suffering. There’s no one else he can turn to.

“You, you know, Yahweh,
remember me and take account of me
and take vengeance for me on my pursuers.
Do not, in your slowness to anger, take me away.
Know that on your account I bear reproach.” (Jeremiah 15: 15 – Anchor Bible)

“Why has my pain become continual
and my blow desperate,
refusing to be healed?” (Jeremiah 15:18a – Anchor Bible)

Jeremiah may have begun his work in joy, saying: “Your words were found and I ate them, and your word was to me for joy,”– the words of God were sweet, yes sweeter than honey (Psalm 119: 103), but those sweet words soon turned bitter in his belly (Revelation 10: 9 – 10).

Jeremiah’s book is the longest book of the prophets, indeed, the longest book in the Bible (if we’re keeping the separation of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles into two volumes each). It is 21,835 words (Lundbom 57). Jeremiah was a prophet for 40 long years, during the reign of five successive kings – and yet, this is the only time, the only point in the entire book, that Jeremiah speaks of having any joy in his service. And even here, that joy is muted by the “indignation,” and “bitterness (LXX)” that fills his soul because of the heavy hand of God that presses down on him. In the Salvation Army we like to sing, “Joy! Joy! Joy! There is joy in the Salvation Army!” (Pearson) Perhaps Jeremiah would be like those irreverent ones among us who follow that line with “Try and find it…” because it just doesn’t seem to be there for him.

All his work, all his teaching, all his prophecy was done without a sense of accomplishment, without a sense of joy. There was no sense of fulfillment. No joy. He made few converts. He preached repentance but saw little. He argued for change, but saw none. If we were judging the prophet by quantifiable, identifiable, statistical measurements, we would have to say that he was, from start to finish, a failure.  

I recently had a meeting with our Divisional Commander (something like a bishop in other denominations), and it wasn’t exactly a pleasant meeting. Accusations were made. It was hostile. It was confrontational, painful. In the course of that meeting the DC asked if I could identify any high points of my 17 years as an officer in The Salvation Army, if I could point to anything like a success in my work. Like Jeremiah, I had to confess that there have been very few. It has been, for me, a long painful time, and there are few ‘successes’ that I can identify to justify my work. I sometimes (often times) feel like I understand that man of contention.

If I may interrupt the prophet’s confession to make one of my own: it is disappointing and frustrating to preach and not see the church grow. It is tiring to plan programs and events, and not have much of anything to show on the statistical reports. And it is distressing, painful to have one’s commitment and effort questioned because of one line of statistics. Whatever accomplishments I’ve had are reduced to a single line on the monthly reports and they disappear. My faith and my commitment to the Army are questioned because of this failure. I feel beaten down.

I’ve never doubted my calling to be an officer in The Salvation Army (though I’ve had plenty of others who have doubted it for me…) but like the prophet, I sometimes distrust God because of it. Jeremiah said to God:

“Will you really be for me a deceptive stream,
waters that are not sure?” (Jeremiah 15: 18b – Anchor Bible)

Jeremiah compares God to either a mirage in the desert (waters that disappear when you need them most) or a dry desert riverbed, one of the wadis of the Palestinian landscape that flow with cool, refreshing water one day and are dust dry the next. Jeremiah, pushed to the edge by his isolation, by his suffering, by his failure begins to wonder if God can actually be trusted. “God is good,” the preacher says, and the people respond “all the time!” But Jeremiah isn’t convinced.

Jeremiah’s confession here, begins in a joyful recollection but moves toward bitter complaint. But as we begin now to track Yahweh’s response to the prophet that emotional movement is reversed. God begins his response to the discouraged prophet with a strongly worded (angry, even…) rebuke, but moves into assurance and a reaffirmation of his promises to Jeremiah.

“Assuredly, thus says the LORD:
If you turn back, I shall take you back” (Jeremiah 15: 19 – JPS)

The message that Jeremiah preached to Judah is now turned back upon him: You need to repent.  You need to turn back. Biblical scholars are divided as to what it was that Jeremiah needed to repent of, but the suggestion that “they, they will return to you, but you, you will not turn to them…” (Jeremiah 19 – Anchor Bible) is taken by some to suggest that perhaps Jeremiah had gone soft – had softened his message and acquiesced to the people (Lundbom 750).

The suggestion is that after years and years of fruitless teaching and strongly worded messages, and after his prolonged isolation from the rest of the community, Jeremiah had tried to find his way back into acceptance among the people by softening the edges of his message. That he had “turned to them…”

Other interpreters suggest that Jeremiah needed to repent for suggesting that God could not be trusted, calling him “deceptive waters” was a cheap shot, and that the prophet should have known better. Whatever it was, Yahweh bluntly tells Jeremiah that he needs to stop, to turn and start again.

“If you turn back, I shall take you back
And you shall stand before Me;
If you produce what is noble
Out of the worthless,
You shall be My spokesman.” (Jeremiah 15: 19 – JPS)

If the prophet wanted comfort, if the prophet wanted affirmation for work well done – he found none. Only rebuke. If the prophet wanted warm-fuzzies and a sense of fulfillment, he got none. He received his own message turned against him. But God moves quickly from this cold rebuke to assurance and reaffirmation of the promises that he gave to the prophet at the beginning of his call:

“I will make you to this people
a fortified wall of bronze;
they will fight against you
but will not overcome you,
for I am with you,
to save and rescue you,
                -oracle of Yahweh -
Yes I will rescue you from the hand of evildoers
and I will redeem you from the grasp of the ruthless.” (Jeremiah 15: 20 – 21 – Anchor Bible)

Earlier in this confessional passage there is an obscure and difficult to translate line that, in one rendering says, “Can iron break iron from the north and bronze?”  (Jeremiah 15: 12) It seems to be a rhetorical question addressed to the distressed prophet: Can iron-clad enemies break an even stronger iron and bronze Jeremiah?” (Lundbom 734).

But the question isn’t answered by Yahweh; it’s left to the prophet to find the answer.

Will you be beaten down by their repeated blows? Will you be broken? Will you fall? Or will you find the strength that God has given you? Will you be a fortified wall of bronze, not overcome by those enemies throwing themselves against you?

So you, gird up your loins,
Arise and speak to them
all that I command you.
Do not break down before them,
lest I break you before them.
I make you this day
a fortified city,
and an iron pillar,
and bronze walls,
against the whole land …
they will attack you,
but they shall not overcome you;
For I am with you – declares the LORD -
to save you.” (Jeremiah 1: 17 – 19 – JPS)

Bond, Michael. How Extreme Isolation Warps the Mind. BBC website. 2014 

Finkelstein, Israel; Silberman, Neil Asher. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts Simon and Schuster. 2001.

Gerwitz, Matthew D. Simple in Definition;Complex in Action. Reformjudaism.org. 2013. 

JPS Hebrew – English Tanakh. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society,

1999.

Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 1 – 20: Anchor Bible Vol. 21A. New York, NY. Doubleday. 1999.

Person, William James. “Joy in the Salvation Army” The Salvation Army Songbook, The Salvation Army, London.

And I’m a long, long way from your Hill of Calvary

And I’m a long way from where I was and where I need to be

If there is a light you can’t always see

And there is a world we can’t always be

If there is a kiss I stole from your mouth

And there is a light, don’t let it go out.
“A Song for Someone” – U2

The Prophet is Unloved (Cheer Up! There’s Worse To Come)

Home is where you’re safe, right? Home is where you’re welcome, yes? When you’re troubled, when you’re low, you can go to your family for strength, for comfort, for help, right? If you’re not a prophet, perhaps. Jesus said, “A prophet is despised only in his own country, among his own relatives and in his own house.” (Mark 6:4) Jeremiah, son of Hilkiah, one of the priests living at Anathoth in the territory of Benjamin during the days of King Josiah, King Jehoiakim and King Zedekiah, was threatened by many enemies during his life: he was beaten and put into stocks by priest Pashhur, son of the high priest (20: 1-4), imprisoned by King Zedekiah (37:18, 28:28), threatened with death (38:4), and thrown into a cistern (38:6), but perhaps the most hurtful of the abuse he suffered came from those closest to him. Jeremiah was not loved and welcomed in his hometown; the people of his home town, and members of his own family even, plotted to kill him.

“You must not prophesy anymore,” they said. “You must not prophesy in the name of the LORD or you will die by our hand!” (11: 21)

This violent antipathy for the prophet seems to have surprised Jeremiah. Perhaps we would say that he was foolish and naïve. Perhaps he really should have realized that his vigorous defense of the religious reforms initiated by King Josiah, even after King Josiah’s untimely death on the battlefield against Pharaoh Necho II – even after those reforms had been halted and undone by Josiah’s successor, would stir up fierce animosity among the many of the religious leaders, especially among those religious leaders whose work was threatened by Josiah’s reforms. Perhaps Jeremiah should have realized that even the priestly members of his family would see him as an enemy. And yet, Jeremiah doesn’t seem to have anticipated the hatred that came from his own country, among his own relatives and from his own house.

The LORD informed me, and I knew -
Then you let me see their deeds.
For I was like a docile lamb
led to the slaughter;
I did not realize
that it was against me
they fashioned their plots:
“Let us destroy the tree with its [sap],
Let us cut him off from the land of the living.
That his name be remembered no more!”
(11: 18 – 19 JPS)

God had warned Jeremiah, told him about the evil in the hearts of his family, and Jeremiah knew it. He knew it, but couldn’t believe it, couldn’t bring himself to accept the truth of it. These were his own, his friends and family. He’d played in the streets with them, he’d gone to school with them. He’d studied side by side with them. He trusted them. He loved them. And even though God had informed Jeremiah, it wasn’t until an unnamed confidant of Jeremiah showed him proof, provided evidence of their treachery, that he was finally able to admit to himself that the men of Anathoth (including members of his own family) were trying to have him killed.

He trusted them, even as they were planning his death, He trusted them. And why shouldn’t he have trusted them? They were family. They were friends. They were, ostensibly, ‘on the same team,’ working together to minister to the people in the name of their God. They wore the same uniform, offered the same prayers, offered the same sacrifices… But these men of Anathoth (11: 21), his brothers, members of his own house (12: 6) were scheming to destroy him. And Jeremiah is ashamed of his own trusting naïveté.

God,
I have
been naïve;
I’ve been callow.

I trusted those who planned my destruction;
those who were my comrades and my brothers.

If family
and friends fail,
who is
left?

(The Prophet's Lament)

This is the way of it – life is hard and we are hurt and abused by many, but it is the ones closest to us who hurt us the worst. Our wickedest wounds come from those we trust. Jesus’s family thought he was crazy – when they heard of the crowds that were following him and the things he was saying, they set out to take charge of him, to seize him and drag him home saying, “he is out of his mind.” (Mark 3: 21) His followers betrayed and abandoned him and left him to die alone. And Jesus warned his disciples that those who followed him would find that their enemies would be the members of their own households (Matthew 10:36).

This abuse comes in many forms both direct and indirect. There are the obvious examples of yelling and hitting, cruel words and physical blows. These kinds of hurts are immediate and evident. But there are many subtle forms of aggression that can be easily overlooked (or easily hidden) in what should otherwise be a close-knit relation: spreading gossip, ignoring phone calls or emails, showing up late for meetings, sabotaging projects, giving the silent treatment, disguising criticism as compliments, etc.

These forms of abuse are easily masked behind smiles and compliments, and can be difficult to describe or pinpoint, but they are real. The wounds of passive-aggressive behavior may be hidden, but they hurt as much as a physical blow. This abuse can come from relatives and co-workers and leaders and bosses, from trusted friends, from those in our church. From people we trust. 

There is nothing particularly friendly about “friendly fire.” Soldiers expect to be shot at by the enemy, but when the shells are coming from our own lines, from our friends, we are disheartened. We hesitate to try again. We lose confidence in our leaders. We lose confidence in ourselves. We are demoralized (U.S.Congress Office of Technology Assessment 2).

And the prophet Jeremiah was demoralized as well. The realization that his own house, his own family, his brothers and co-ministers were out to destroy him caused him to question all that he once believed to be true. Suddenly the goodly order of the universe and providential care of God seemed not so manifest. 

“You will win, O LORD, if I make a claim against you,” said the prophet. You are God, and I’m only a pitiful man – what could I say? How could I challenge you or your word or your world? “Yet I shall present charges against you,” he continued (12: 1a). The disillusioned prophet, shattered by the attacks he’d suffered at the hands of those who were closest to him, now dared to question the goodness and graciousness of the God who’d called him to service.

“Why does the way of the wicked prosper?
Why are the workers of treachery at ease?
You have planted them, and they have taken root,
they spread, even bear fruit.
You are present in their mouths,
but far from their thoughts.” (12: 1b – 2)

The prophet begins to doubt the goodness of God. The abuse that Jeremiah has suffered is God’s fault. The wicked prosper – because God allows it. The workers of treachery have lives of ease – because God allows them to live at ease. For crying out loud! He planted them where they are – he put them into those positions of authority from which they abused the prophet. But they hid their abuse well. They spoke of God fluently and frequently, but he was far from their thoughts.

O villain, villain, smiling, damnèd villain!

My tables—meet it is I set it down

That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain—
Hamlet I – V – 106 - 108

But why? Why? Why would God allow this? Why would God allow these men to abuse his faithful prophet? This is what Jeremiah could not understand. And I would like to be able to tell you that eventually he came to understand at some point, that the clouds lifted and the sun came out, that the mysteries were revealed. I would like to say that there was peace and comfort for the mistreated prophet. But there wasn’t. Not really. The five ‘confessional’ passages of Jeremiah’s book (11: 18 – 12: 6/ 15: 10 – 21 / 17: 12 – 18 / 18: 18 – 23 / 20: 7 – 18) are increasingly dark. His life and sufferings are unrelieved. There is little in the way of divine comfort. There is no guiding hand of God, no miracle. No ravens feed him in the wilderness (1 Kings 17: 2 – 6). No angels bring him a meal of bread and water to fortify him for his journey (1 Kings 19: 4 – 8). No angel shuts the lion’s mouth (Daniel 6:22). Jeremiah is alone, abandoned to suffer abuse from those he trusted.

I’m sorry. Jeremiah doesn’t make for ‘good’sermons… 

Yet in all of this, Jeremiah persisted in preaching the message he’d been given, and persisted in bringing his complaints to God. He persisted in proclaiming the prophetic message even when there was no change, even when there was no repentance, even when there was no increase in the weekly attendance statistics He spoke the words he was given. And he persisted in bringing his despair, his frustration, his anger directly to God.

In all of this, however, He never sought vengeance for himself. The prophet was content that God, the Righteous Judge, would decide and give acceptable recompense for what he’d endured.

“O LORD of Hosts, O just Judge,
who test the thoughts and the mind,
let me see Your retribution upon them,
for I lay my case before you.” (11: 20)

He calls upon God to ‘butcher’ or to ‘slaughter’ his abusers (12: 3). And this sounds at least as violent as the plot of those who wanted to see Jeremiah dead – (I know I’ve frequently admitted my own discomfort with the imprecatory parts of the bible) - But in this response (as dark as it may be) he has NOT denied the abuse or the hurt that he’s suffered (because denial of abuse can lead to self-destructive attitudes and behavior) and he has NOT sought personal vengeance (to do so leads to hatred and to violence). Instead he has allowed the Just Judge to work out the appropriate response.

In this case it is God assurance to Jeremiah that those who have conspired to have him killed will themselves be cut off from the land of the living and that their children and descendants would be wiped out, that their name would not be passed down.What they wanted for Jeremiah would be turned around upon them. (There were, however, 183 of the “sons of Anathoth” who returned from the exile – (Ezra 2:23). Perhaps there were some in Anathoth who repented and were given mercy and we can filter those imprecatory prayers through grace…)

I know that as a minister of the gospel I am expected to bring “good news” – the joy of salvation in Jesus Christ – but sometimes that good news is “Cheer up! There’s worse to come…” and I say that with as much wry, black humor as I can manage.

Jeremiah, the faithful prophet, was abused throughout his career as a prophet. He made few converts, his statistics were abysmal. He was abused by his enemies and (what is worse) by his own friends and family. He was beaten. He was arrested. He was jailed. He was cut off from his community. And through it all he persisted. He persisted through the abuse, and through God’s persistent silence.

Jesus endured much the same. His family thought he was crazy, and rejected his message. His friends betrayed him and left him alone in his darkest hour. And Jesus said that his followers could expect the same as well.

But “do not be afraid of them [who conspire to abuse you]. Everything now covered up will be uncovered, and everything now hidden will be made clear. What I say to you in the dark, tell in the daylight; what you hear in whispers, proclaim from the housetops.  Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; fear him rather who can destroy both body and soul in hell. Can you not buy two sparrows for a penny? And yet not one falls to the ground without your Father knowing. Why, every hair on your head has been counted. So there is no need to be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.  So if anyone declares himself for me in the presence of human beings, I will declare myself for him in the presence of my Father in heaven.” Matthew 10: 26 - 32

  

U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, Who Goes There? Friend or Foe OTA-ICS-537 (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1993) 

Salome - The Exploited Child

Sunday's sermon will come from Mark 6: 14 - 19.  Here's a sermon I wrote a several years ago on this same story.

***

Today we’ll look at a young woman who doesn’t even get her name mentioned in the bible. Her story – or rather one story from her life – is told in 2 of the 4 gospels (and alluded to in one other). We have very few details about her so we cannot speak authoritatively on her life – but we can explore some of the issues and implications of her story.

She is Salome, and though her name is not given in the gospels we know it from extra-biblical sources. (There is a Salome mentioned in the gospels, but this is not her story) Salome’s family was as messed up as any you’d find on daytime television today. Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Adultery, Incest, Lust, Jealousy, Murder, and Revenge are all key words in Salome’s family.

Her mother was Herodias. Herodias was the granddaughter of Herod the great (the Herod who slaughtered the innocents in Bethlehem in an attempt to kill the infant Jesus). Salome’s father was named Phillip. But Herodias had divorced Phillip to marry his half-brother, Herod Antipas.\

Herod Antipas had also divorced his wife in order to marry his sister in law, Herodias. Herodias was also his niece as her father, Aristobulus, was Herod’s half-brother. Herod Antipas married Herodias, his niece and sister in law. Herod Antipas was the son of Herod the great, and was the Herod who mocked Jesus during his trial before the crucifixion.

John the Baptizer had often spoken out against Herod’s marriage to his niece and sister-in-law, Herodias, because it was an illicit marriage. “It is unlawful for you to have her,” he told Herod.

Herod’s first wife (the daughter of a king from Arabia) was still alive; Herodias’ husband Phillip was also still alive. According to the laws of the Jews, both were committing adultery, and also incest.

-Leviticus 18:16 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would dishonor your brother.

-Leviticus 20:21 “‘If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.

Because of his boldness in speaking against Herod Antipas and Herodias, Herod seized John and had him arrested and imprisoned in the fortress- palace Machaerus on the coast of the Dead Sea, which had been built by Herod the great as a defense against the Moabites and Arabs (according to Jewish historian, Josephus).

Herodias wanted John dead. She hated him. She hated that he dared to speak out against her. She carried a grudge against him and wanted him executed, but she could not because Herod wouldn’t allow it – though he also wanted John dead.

Matthew tells us that Herod feared that the common people, the followers of John would riot if he had John killed. Mark tells us that Herod kept John in safe custody because he liked to listen to John’s preaching – even though it left him confused and perplexed. Herod was afraid of John and knew that he was a good and holy man. Herod was a complexly fearful man. He feared losing his control as Tetrarch (a local ruler - not really a King). He feared that Rome would remove his title. He feared a riot by the followers of John. He feared an attack from Arabia by the king whose daughter he had divorced and sent away. He feared his wife, Herodias.

And he feared the word of God as delivered by John the Baptizer. He wanted to hear it, but also didn’t want to. He knew it was right and true, but also feared it because he did not want to change anything in his life. So he kept John imprisoned, not intending to harm him.

Herodias, however, had not forgotten her grudge against the prophet. She waited for her chance to avenger herself on John the Baptizer.Her chance finally came when Herod Antipas held a birthday banquet to which he’d invited the principal leaders, authorities, and commanders of Galilee. This was a late afternoon / early evening meal that would last for several hours. The long celebration banquet was concluded with what was called a comissatio. 

The comissatio was a post-banquet social drinking bout for the men often involving risqué entertainment – usually dancers and or prostitutes.As the dinner concluded and the men became drunker and drunker, Herodias sent her daughter in to dance for Herod and his guests. Salome was a young woman; the men were grossly intoxicated. Her dance was a seductive alluring dance to entice the men, specifically to entice Herod Antipas. 

Entertaining at a commissatio was only for lewd servant women or actresses and prostitutes – not members of one’s own family, and not for descendants of royalty. Herodias, however, was intent on executing John the Baptist and was willing to shame and degrade her own daughter in order to achieve her wicked goal.

Herod Antipas, it seems, was enticed by this dance. He was allured and his lusts inflamed. So much so that after the dance was over he said to her, “Ask me for anything: I’ll give it to you! … Ask me for anything and it’s yours by Heaven, even if it’s half my kingdom.” Herod swore to give her anything; even up to half his kingdom (though he was not a king and had no kingdom to give away, Rome was in control…)

Prompted by her mother, Salome asked for the head of John the Baptist to be brought in on a platter. She was lead and instructed by her mother to ask for this gory prize.

Herod was trapped. He had promised, he had sworn to give her whatever she asked for. He had spoken an oath in front of witnesses. The spoken word had power, and rather than look weak and vulnerable in front of his guests, Herod agreed to her request. He sent a soldier from his personal guard to execute the sentence on John. When he returned, the soldier carried John’s head on a platter. He gave it to Salome who in turn gave it to Herodias.

This was child pornography. Herodias used and abused Salome to get revenge on John the Baptizer. Herod and his guests used and abused her to satisfy their drunken lusts. Salome was manipulated like a tool by her mother and seen as an object, a pedophilic fantasy by her uncle/step-father and his guests. The end result was not just the death of John the Baptist, but also the death of Salome’s innocence.

Salome has been an attractive person for writers, composers, and painters. There have been a large number of paintings, movies, operas, plays, and novels about her. And for the most part her character is described as an insatiable virgin who wants to destroy men through sex and sin. Instead of the guilt being on Herodias and the manipulator and pornographer or on Herod Antipas as the voyeur and pervert – Salome has been tagged as a Femme Fatale, a beautiful woman who desires to seduce and entrap men and to destroy them by leading them to sin and death.

Salome, as described in the very brief gospel narratives however, was an unprotected young woman. Her family, the ones who should have been protecting her, and shielding her instead used her to further their own evil plans and abused her innocence. Preachers and commentators and artists have focused on woman’s wiles, and the seductive danger that they are to men, rather than on protecting the innocent.

The world is still putting young women into this mold. From Barbie dolls to Britney Spears young girls see that in order to fit in they need to be sexy and flirtatious. Pornography continues to degrade and exploit women. There are some who argue that the women in these magazines and films are willing participants – even so, they are willingly participating in their own exploitation, not realizing that they could be so much more.

Salome represents not the femme fatale who wants to destroy men, but the young and innocent manipulated by those who should have protected her. She is the face of the children victimized by child pornographers; she is the face of women who grow up believing that they need to use sex to get what they want. Salome is the symbol of a whole generation of young girls and young women who have been taught that they are only a construction of parts to pleasure men’s fantasies.

We need to rescue these Salomes from the manipulative Herodias of this world, from those who would use them to further their own ambitions. We need to rescue these young Salomes from the Herod Antipas’ of this world who are content to see them merely as sexual fantasies.

Ante-Nicene Fathers – Epistle to Diognetus – Christians are the Soul of the World

I have been packing these books with me for the last few years as I’ve moved from place to place.  I have ‘consulted’ them occasionally as I’ve prepared for sermons or bible studies.  I’ve double checked quotes and context of quotes from them as I’ve encountered them in other books I’ve read.  But, to date, I haven’t read these volumes.  And I’ve decided to change that.  I’ve made it my goal to read through the 10 volumes of the Ante-Nicene Fathers (that is, the writings of the Church Father before the council of Nicea.)

The second writing contained in the first volume is the Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus.

This little work is one of the earliest examples of Christian apologetics (not an “I’m sorry” but a “defense” of Christianity).  The author remains anonymous to us; “Mathetes” is not really a name, it simply means “a disciple.”  And, likewise, the recipient is unknown.  It contains 10 short ‘chapters’ (and two more extra chapters that seem to have been added later…)

The letter was written to persuade Diognetus that Christianity, though relatively new among world religions and so unlike other contemporary religions, is worthy of his investigation and acceptance.

The disciple begins by demonstrating the worthlessness of idol worship.  They are, he argues, made of stone, brass, silver, iron, and earthenware – all of which are corruptible materials, subject to rot and tarnish.  And they are all, quite obviously, the work of human hands, fashioned by smiths and carpenters and sculptors. And, what is more, these things are all completely senseless.  They cannot hear or see their worshippers.  They are lifeless. They are incapable of motion or emotion.  They are locked in rooms (to prevent them from being stolen) and all their food and drink is brought to them. If these are gods, they are pitiful. The disciple argues that no human would subject himself to the kind of trapped kind of existence these supposed gods endure. 

The disciple then turns and says that while Jews, like Christians, avoid this kind of worthless worship Christianity should not be likened to the Jewish “superstion.” 

Now, the editor of this particular set of volumes has written in his introductory remarks for this letter said that “Mathetes was possibly a catechumen of St. Paul or one of the apostle’s associates.”[i] But I can’t imagine Paul describing the Jewish faith in the way that Mathetes does; Mathetes seems to share the hostility towards “the Jews” of the sectarian John.  (And while the name “Jesus” and the title “the Christ” are never used in Mathetes’ letter to Diognetus, he does use John’s terms “the Word” and “only-begotten Son.”)

Christians, says the disciple, are unlike any other group; they are “distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe.”[ii]

They live in all parts of the world, speak different languages, follow the various customs and laws of the lands where they live, but they not subsumed into these cultures.

“As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as foreigners.  Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers…They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven.” And because they are so foreign and so strange, they are persecuted by everyone: “They are assailed by the Jews as foreigners, and are persecuted by the Greeks; yet those who hate them are unable to assign any reason for their hatred.” [iii]

And then Mathetes makes the most astounding statement:

“What the soul is in the body, that Christians are in the world.”[iv]

I doubt that this argument would bear much weight today – that those who hate Christianity can find no reason for their hatred and that Christianity is the immaculate and incorruptible soul of the world.  We’ve too much scandal and violence in our Christian history.  Mathetes says that the while the flesh might war against the soul, “the soul loves the flesh that hates it…Christians likewise love those that hate them.”[v] Christians have been responsible for some of the worst acts of violence and hatred the world has ever seen.  We can point out all the good and noble things that Christians have done, but as long as our record of hatred remains unexamined, this soul is spotted.

This ideal Christianity (as the embattled soul that continues to love and bless the body that contains it) is no “earthly invention”  or “mere human system of opinion” says the disciple, but is a revelation from “God Himself, who is almighty, the Creator of all things, and invisible.” He has sent to us “the truth, and the holy and incomprehensible Word.”[vi]

Jesus of Nazareth isn’t named specifically, but the comparisons with John’s gospel are unmistakable.  This emissary from God is the Word.  He is not just a servant or an angel but is “the very Creator and Fashioner of all things.” This emissary is sent from God and is God. 

“As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so sent He Him; as God He sent Him; as to men He sent Him; as a Savior He sent Him…”[vii]

But this emissary has not come as a tyrant to compel us to belief by fear and terror and violence, “for violence has no place in the character of God”

This is not the kind of God we see demonstrated very often.  This God seeks to redeem and bless us, by persuading us of his goodness.  And this is not the Christianity we see very often.  This kind of Christianity seeks to bless the world with love, while patiently suffering the abuses that the world around inflicts upon it.
But what a compelling illustration.  I could believe in this kind of Christianity.  I could believe in this kind of God.

---

[i] Page 23

[ii] Chap. V

[iii] Chap. V

[iv] Chap. VI

[v] Chap. VI

[vi] Chap. VII

[vii] Chap. VII

Return of the Biblical Limerick - 2 Samuel 13: 1 - 5

Amnon feigned sick so Tamar, his sister,
brought cakes to his room; he tried to kiss her.
He had planned this caper
to trap and then rape her.
When Tamar cried, Amnon dismissed her.

Don’t Torture a Duckling

The director of Don’t Torture a Duckling, Lucio Fulci, is known to horror aficionados as the ‘Godfather of Gore.’  Many of his films (like Zombie 2  and The Beyond) feature gore filled murders and flesh eating creatures.  His films are not for the squeamish.

Don’t Torture a Duckling (Non si sevizia un paperino) marks the beginning of Fulci’s use of gore in his movies but it’s very restrained.  Well... as restrained as a scene can be when it features a human being crashing head first down a stony hillside, having its flesh ripped away by jagged rocks as it falls. Or when the scene features the mercilessly cruel beating of woman by angry mob using clubs and chains.

But don’t let that pull you away from this film. It is a very sensitive film.  Fulci has said in several interviews that this was his most personal and his favorite of all his films.  It is a complex criticism of social values – traditional versus modernity, the nature of innocence, fate and free will.  It was the title that drew me to this film, but I’m still not certain I completely understand its relevance.  Don’t Torture a Duckling is a film about injustice and society’s cruelty to children. 

Children are being murdered in the small Italian village of Accendura. Though this is shocking, it isn’t a new thing.  Murdered children have a long history in horror films – going back as far as 1931 to Fritz Lang’s film M and James Whales Frankenstein.  Accendura is an isolated community in the mountains, only recently dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world by a newly constructed highway.  The villagers are superstitious and fearful and suspicious of outsiders. And when the police are unable to discover the killer, a mob mentality takes over the townspeople.  Everyone becomes a suspect and suspects are guilty and they must be dealt with – violently.  It’s mob rule. It’s vigilante justice.  And it is ugly.

Vigilante justice is always ugly (despite our fascination with the Lone Ranger and Batman…).  Genesis 34 tells another story of ‘frontier justice.’  And it’s just as violent and gory and ugly as any film by Lucio Fulci.

Mark of the Devil

The 1970 German film Mark of the Devil  (Hexen bis aufs Blut gequält)  is not an especially great film.  There’s nothing in the writing, acting, directing, or editing to make this one stand out as a great film – or even a good film. The editing was jumpy, the acting stiff and the sound was irritating, but it wasn’t the worst movie I’ve ever seen.

Perhaps most damning is the fact that this film is more remembered for its outlandish promotional material than for the film itself.  Advertisements for the film declared it to be "Positively the most horrifying film ever made" and "Rated V for Violence", and barf bags were given out at theaters for those movie-goers with nervous stomachs. 

You can hear a radio spot for the film here.

But despite the lack of outstanding qualities, the movie still seemed relevant and timely.

Set in Austria during the early 18th century, the movie follows a Witchfinder (Herbert Lom) and the young man he trains (Udo Kier), both traveling the courtyside terrorizing people suspected of practicing witchcraft and devil worship.  Those who are accused of worshiping the devil or of being witches are tortured until they confess to their crimes.

Whether they were guilty or not was immaterial.

I accuse you of having trampled on the cross, of having ridden to the Sabbath, of throwing the Holy Cross of our Savior into manure so that the skies grew dark, and the rain fell upon the earth! 

But replace witchcraft with terrorism and witchfinders with CIA or FBI agents and this film is still pertinent. We like to think that we are more civilized, less barbaric, less cruel, less bloodthirsty than those who hunted down suspected witches and burned them at the stake during the dark and unenlightened medieval years.

But are we?  If American citizens can be assassinated without due-process, without indictment, and without trial by jury…

 If we have leaders who believe torture to be a morally acceptable practice…

Is there a moral difference between the rack and thumbscrews and water-boarding?  

The Burden of Nahum

I have said it before; I will probably say it again.  I don’t like Nahum.  And I don’t think I’m likely to change my opinion here.  I don’t like the book of Nahum.  We don’t know enough about the man, Nahum, whose name means “Comfort” or “Consolation,” for me to say I don’t like Nahum the man.  But I do not, do not, do not like his book.

Is that a strange admission for a pastor to make?  I mean, this isn’t just a matter of preference – like I prefer the Mark’s gospel over Luke’s or I like the letter to the Hebrews more than Paul’s letter to the Corinthians.  No.  This is a thorough dislike of the book of Nahum.  I just don’t like it.

And yet, I have purposefully brought myself to preach from it.  I could have avoided this. I crafted the preaching calendar we’re using this year to bring us through each of the prophets, and I could have slipped right past Nahum’s three chapters – and some of you probably wouldn’t have noticed or cared.  Hardly anyone reads or preaches from Nahum.  In fact, none of the official church lectionaries include Nahum.  In the history of Christian sermons, there have been relatively few drawn from Nahum’s oracle.

Though, I will make this concession.  Nahum’s writing is powerful.  He has the poet’s descriptive skill.  To read his book is to be overwhelmed by the chaotic sights and sounds of war.  Reading Nahum you can hear and see and almost feel the battle being fought around you.  There is intensity and power in his writing.

The book is described for us in the first verse of the first chapter as “An oracle concerning Nineveh, the book of the visions of Nahum.” An oracle is a form of prophetic speech in which information is transmitted from God to his followers to answer important questions, to respond to feelings of doubt, or to reveal future events.  Sometimes the prophet would seek out an answer to a question and be given an oracle in response, other times God would speak without having been sought out.

Curiously, the Hebrew word for Oracle is also sometimes translated as “burden.”  It is something lifted up – the prophet who speaks the oracle must lift up his voice.  But it is heavy; it is something that must be carried; it is a load upon the prophet’s shoulders.  It is a burden. And it is this burden that the prophet Nahum has left us. 

What are we to do with this oracle? What should we do with this burden?  I ask the question, but I’m getting ahead of myself. How can you understand that question or begin to form a response, until you know more about the book, until you’ve felt its weight?  

So let us pick up this book together, let’s carry it a little while, you and I. 

Ready?  Lift (remember to use your legs, not your back…).

The Assyrian Empire (more specifically known to historians and scholars as the Neo-Assyrian Empire) was the world’s first military superpower.  With a vast hoard of military men armed with iron weapons and covered with strong armor, and countless chariots – used as mobile firing platforms for archers – the Assyrian army would launch merciless attacks against its foes. First a devastating charge of cavalry and chariots to smash the enemy’s lines followed by a swarm of infantrymen to purse and slaughter the now divided forces.  The Assyrians preferred this kind of bloody frontal assault designed to surprise and shock their enemies. 

“At the command of the god Ashur, the great Lord, I rushed upon the enemy like the approach of a hurricane...I put them to rout and turned them back. I transfixed the troops of the enemy with javelins and arrows....I cut their throats like sheep...My prancing steeds, trained to harness, plunged into their welling blood as into a river; the wheels of my battle chariot were bespattered with blood and filth. I filled the plain with corpses of their warriors like herbage” —Sennacherib, (704 – 682 B.C.)

The populations of captured cities were deported to other portions of the vast and expanding Assyrian empire.  This undermined the ability of restless and angry subjects to rebel. And, perhaps more significantly, it was a psychological weapon. The threat of deportation or slaughter kept the empire settled and encouraged those cities and nations that might have otherwise resisted the Assyrian expansion to settle peaceably.

Those who refused to surrender and those who attempted to rebel against their Assyrian overlords were publicly tortured; they were flayed, impaled, beheaded, and burnt alive. Their eyes were ripped out, and their fingers, noses and ears cut off. Women were raped, men mutilated until death, and their heads, arms, hands and even lower lips were placed on the conquered city's walls, skulls and noses atop stakes as a warning to others. On some occasions, people were blinded so that as they wandered throughout the land they could tell others of the Assyrian terrors.

The Assyrian Empire was powerful and it was cruel. 

In 722 B.C. the Assyrian Empire conquered the kingdom of Israel and destroyed its capital city, Samaria.  Its inhabitants were scattered throughout the empire.  And for nearly one hundred years the Assyrian Empire threatened and attacked and invaded the southernkingdom of Judah.  They demanded tribute and taxes. Their armies raided Judean villages. 

So this is where we start, with the long memory of torture and fear and terror and violence from the Assyrian Empire.  Can we feel that burden?  The Assyrians have been the dominant power for as long as anyone can remember. They have been calling the shots.  The people of Israel – those survivors who fled south into the kingdom of Judah, and the people of Judah had lived in continual fear of the Assyrian Empire. They’d suffered and died under the Assyrians for generations…

And now…

And now Nahum has a word – an oracle (a burden) from Yahweh concerning Nineveh, the capital city of Assyria.

“Victims of injustice have a long memory, for the traces of their suffering are deeply engraved.” Jurgen Moltman -The Tortured Christ

While most of the words of Nahum’s oracle are addressed to the people of Nineveh, it is unlikely that he actually spoke them in that great city, or that he wrote them down to be delivered in the mail.  It’s as if he’s speaking over Nineveh’s shoulder to the people of Judah.  The oracle of doom and death and destruction for Nineveh wasn’t given in order to encourage them to repent, but to give “consolation” and “comfort” to Israel and Judah and her many other victims.

Nahum begins with what almost sounds like an incantation:  

Yahweh is a jealous and vengeful God, 
Yahweh takes vengeance, he is rich in wrath; 
Yahweh takes vengeance on his foes, 
he stores up fury for his enemies.
Yahweh is slow to anger but great in power.
Nahum 1: 2 – 3

It’s as if by repeating the name of God, Nahum intends to invoke his God – to awaken the sleeping divine warrior and to summon him to battle.  And that’s the kind of God we find in Nahum’s oracle – a warrior God.  Nahum sees him striding forth in the upper regions of the atmosphere, in the storms and winds – the clouds of the sky are the dust stirred up by his feet as he goes forth to war. (1: 3)

And this warrior God is powerful.  He speaks and rivers and oceans dry up, garden lands wither for lack of moisture, mountains collapse, hills reel, the earth and its inhabitants quake in the heat of his volcanic wrath. (1: 4 – 6)  Nothing and no one can withstand him or stand up against his righteous indignation.

But in all of this, Nahum’s God begins to sound a bit like the Assyrians that he hates – powerful, cruel, and merciless. I wonder if this is too much of a burden.

Verses 9 – 15 of chapter 1 contain a series of shifting judgments and promises – left ambiguously in the original language with unidentified pronouns.  Except for the promises in verse 15, it isn’t immediately clear who is being addressed. Is it Nineveh? Is it Judah? Who is the “you”?  Who are “they”?

What do you plot against Yahweh?
He will make a full end;
his adversaries will not rise up a second time.
Like  entangled thorns they are consumed, 
like dry stubble.

From you has emerged 
someone plotting evil against Yahweh,
one who counseled villainy.

Yahweh says this:
“Unopposed and many though they be,
they will be cut down and pass away.
Though I have made you suffer,
I shall make you suffer no more, 
for now I shall break his yoke which presses hard upon you
and I will snap your chains.”

As for you, this is Yahweh’s decree:
“You will have no heirs to your name,
from the temple of your gods I will remove
the carved and cast image,
and I will make your grave a heap of filth.”

See on the mountains, the feet of the herald!
“Peace!” he proclaims.
Judah, celebrate your feasts,
carry out your vows,
for Belial will never pass through you again:
he has been utterly cut off.
Nahum 1: 9 – 15

And though some translations like the NIV offer to interpret for us inserting “O Nineveh” or “O Judah” in order to clarify the subject of these pronouncements, I prefer to leave them as Nahum wrote them – slightly ambiguous. The interpretive insertions probably are correct, but the ambiguity, slight as it is, helps me. Otherwise it’s all to easy to assume that Nahum’s voice is God’s voice – that Nahum’s enemies were, in fact, God’s enemies, and that I can do the same with my voice and my enemies.

The prophet Jonah was reluctant to offer God’s mercy and love to the people of Assyria.  He sat in the shade of vine and pouted when his predicted judgment of imminent destruction failed to occur.  God asked him “Should I not be have compassion on Nineveh?” (Jonah 4: 11)

Compassion for Nineveh?  Nahum – whose name means compassion – certainly had none for that great city.   He seems to celebrate the slaughter of its people.  It was clobberin’ time.  It was comeuppance time.  It was time for the abusers to be abused, for the torturer to be tortured, for the killer to be killed. 

I can understand the appeal of this, though.  We all want justice. Made as we are, in the image of God; we want to see justice and righteousness in this world.  We want to see the righteous rewarded and the wicked punished.  But sometimes that desire for justice gets twisted into a desire for revenge.  Like Nahum, we like it when evil men get what’s coming to them.  Remember the parties and the dancing in the street when it was announced that Osama bin Laden was dead?

But I’m not convinced that this is God’s way.  Despite Nahum, I’m not convinced that God takes pleasure in the pursuit of revenge (or justice).  Another Hebrew prophet, from a slightly later time, recorded these words from God:

“Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked?” declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?  (Ezekiel 18:23)

From you has emerged someone plotting evil against Yahweh,one who counseled villainy.

From whom?  Nineveh? The NIV insertion would say so.  And I think Nahum would have agreed. But what about Israel?  What aboutJudah?  Certainly evil and villainy came from them as well.  The other prophets had much to say about the sin and wickedness among God’s people even if Nahum didn’t. 

Though I have made you suffer,I shall make you suffer no more, for now I shall break his yoke which presses hard upon youand I will snap your chains.

If it was Yahweh’s will being enacted in history with the Babylonian invasion of Nineveh, could this ambiguously pronounced promise of rescue and release be given to Assyria?

As for you, this is Yahweh’s decree:“You will have no heirs to your name,

The people of Israel captured by the Assyrians and taken away into captivity never came back.  They remain the “lost tribes” of Israel. Though I’m sure Nahum intended this threat for Assyria (and it was true for Assyria as well), I can’t help but wonder if it fits just as well for Israel.

It’s the ambiguity of these verses, I think, that lightens this burden a little bit.  The ambiguity of these verses makes Nahum a little easier to accept.  As he stands, I think that the fire of Nahum’s fury puts off more smoke than light, that he obscures as much (if not more) than he reveals of God. 

But the ambiguity (slight as it is) allows us to challenge the prophet, and to challenge ourselves.  

Otherwise Nahum’s rant is too much of a burden and not enough of an oracle.


Other Nahum posts:
Kill 'em All, Let God Sort 'em Out!
I Don't Like Nahum

What I'm Reading: Surviving Terror - Hope and Justice in a World of Violence

I've just finished reading a book that has sat on my shelves for some time: Surviving Terror: Hope and Justice in a world of Violence.  It is a  collection of essays and sermons inspired by the life and work of  Korean theologian David Kwang-sun Suh.

And the more I read, the more I realized I need to read.  In describing his life's journey David Suh made me realize that I know little about the history of Korea (and most of what I know is, shamefully, based on episodes of M*A*S*H).  I know nothing about  Minjung theology or the minjung movement.  I know little about the repressive regimes that ruled South Korea (the "good" Korea) after the Korean War.  I know little of the history of Christianity in Japan.  I know little of the racial tensions between the Japanese and Koreans.  I know little of the fundamentalist character of much of Korean Christianity or of its painful similarities  to Confucianism.

But the writers who contributed to this book have something to show me.Spanish priests who objected to the brutalities and inhumanities perpetrated against the native Caribbeans by those who followed after Columbus, victims of  the sexual politics of terror in patriarchal communities, survivors of the Nazi holocaust confronting their fears... these are the stories and the voices within this collection.  

I know something more of the world now, but not enough by any means.  I want to know more.

But this one thing I know of myself - I've not known terror.  Not in the way they have.
I've experienced fear.  I've had moments of panic.  But nothing in my relatively comfortable life has come close to the terrors described in this book - terrors which are, sadly, the norm for many parts of the world.

The book is disturbing in many ways, but challenging, too.   There is no surrender to terror in these pages.  Instead there is a confrontation with those forces, and a call to action, even if the action is small -to write, to speak, to share something of the good news of the gospel and the vision of God's peaceable kingdom.  

I should have read this book sooner.

Surviving Terror: Hope and Justice in a world of Violence 
edited by Victoria Lee Erickson and Michelle Lim Jones
Brazos Press,  2002.

Kill 'em All, Let God Sort 'em Out!

This is sermon that I wrote a few years ago from my least favorite book of the bible.  Since I'm revisiting that book again this Sunday, I thought I'd review and share what I wrote before.

Kill ‘em All, Let God Sort ‘em Out!

Martin Luther found the book of James to be so disagreeable that he wanted to have it removed from the cannon of scripture- he considered it to be a book of straw. If I were in such a position of scholarship and leadership, and people actually asked for my opinion (which as of yet they have not) – I might find myself arguing for the exclusion of the book of Nahum – considering it to be a book of nationalism and hatred. And I don’t think I’m alone in my hesitation to accept Nahum. The lectionaries of the church all skip Nahum. It is an implicit confession by the church that Nahum – at the very least – makes us uncomfortable.

At the conclusion of the film about the life of Joan of Arc, The Messenger, Jean (played by Milla Jovovich) confesses, 

“I fought out of revenge and despair. I was all the things that people believe they are allowed to be when they’re fighting for a cause… I was proud, and stubborn, selfish…yes, cruel.” 

When I read the book of Nahum, I wonder if the prophet Nahum might make a similar confession.

Nahum, curiously, means “compassion” or “comfort” – yet there is very little of either in his prophecy. His message is Doom, Death, and Destruction. There is no hope for reconciliation or repentance or forgiveness. There is no word salvation. There is no word of mercy. There is no word of grace.

Nahum delivered his prophecy sometime between the fall of the Egyptian city of Thebes to the Assyrian army in 663 BC and the destruction of the Assyrian capital city, Nineveh, by an army of Babylonians, Medes, and Scythians in 612 BC.

Assyria conquered the Northern nation of Israel in 722 BC. Around 650 BC Assyria, led by Ashurbanipal, conquered a number of Judean towns and subjugated the Southern Kingdom as well. Judah was made a vassal state to the Assyrian empire.

The prophet Jonah had been sent to Nineveh, but was reluctant to deliver God's message to those he considered enemies. He did go however, and despite (or perhaps because of) his ill feelings toward the Assyrians, delivered a message of imminent destruction. The people of Nineveh repented and God granted forgiveness.

Nahum on the other hand seemed to relish the chance to pronounce a message of imminent destruction and does not allow any opportunity for repentance. Filled with a violent nationalism and a fierce hatred for the cruel Assyrians, Nahum ("comfort" / "compassion") declared that the city would be destroyed and the people slaughtered.

And Nahum was correct. His prophecy of destruction of the city of Nineveh (specifically, destruction by flood and army in 2:7 –9) was fulfilled in 612 BC when the Babylonian army along with troops from the Medes and the Scythians laid siege to the city. The siege lasted only a few months.

Towards the end of the siege there was a tremendous rain and the Tigris River (which flowed through the city) flooded and destroyed a portion of the city walls allowing the invaders to capture the city. The ancient historian Diodorus Siculus tells us that when the king saw the flood waters destroy the wall he set fire to his palace – making it a funeral pyre for himself, his wives, and his concubines. So fully was the city destroyed that the ruins of the city were not rediscovered until 1850!

YHWH is a jealous and vengeful God,
YHWH takes vengeance; he is rich in wrath;
YHWH takes vengeance on his foes,
he stores up fury for his enemies.
YHWH is slow to anger but great in power,
YHWH never lets evil go unpunished.
In storm and whirlwind he takes his way,
the clouds are the dust stirred up by his feet.
(Nahum 1: 2 - 3)

This is the Divine Warrior – the avenging warrior God who destroys the forces of chaos and demolishes the power of the tyrant. Nahum’s God is a God of power and might. A God who judges wickedness, declares sentence, and acts as executioner. Nahum’s God is a terror to the wicked and the cruel. And while he may be slow to anger, Nahum’s God stores up his fury for his enemies and never – ever lets evil go unpunished.

During times of war, nations often declare that they have the Divine Warrior on their side. During the 100-year war between England and France, English soldiers taunted the French by shouting, “the Pope may be French, but Jesus is English!” In the American Civil War both sides, the North and the South, were convinced of the righteousness of their cause – and invoked the Divine Warrior against the other side. “Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord / He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored…” Nazi soldiers during World War II wore belt buckles that were inscribed with the words, “God is with us!” The cold war was given a holy war flavor as the enemy was referred to as “godless communists”.

This Divine Warrior is the kind of God envisioned by “hellfire-and-brimstone” preachers. From this idea we get sermons like the (in)famous sermon, “Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God” by Jonathan Edwards. 

“The wrath of God is like great waters that are damned for the present; they increase more and more and rise higher and higher till an outlet is given; and the longer the stream is stopped, the more rapid and mighty is its course, when once it is let loose…”

If we are completely honest, there are times when we want this kind of Angry Wrathful God. When we read about genocide, and slaughter; when we hear about children who are killed or maimed by landmines, we want an angry God. We want an angry God when we hear about children and wives who are abused and when we hear about the elderly being neglected. We want an angry God when we think about the holocaust in Nazi Germany. We want an angry God when we think about the terrorists who deliberately crashed planes into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and Pennsylvanian landscape on September 11th. We want an angry God when we hear about murder, and drug pushers, and abortion clinics.

We want a God who is angered by sin. We want a God who will pour out wrath on the cruel, the wicked, and the merciless. We want a God who will vindicate the innocent.

But is that really what the bible teaches? Is it the whole truth?

Is that really what we want?

Do we worship a merciless, vengeful, wrathful God? Are we forever to live as ‘sinners in the hands of an angry God?’ And who ultimately decides which side of nationalistic conflicts God favors, especially when both sides claim that God is on their side?

Nahum’s God was rooted in a violent Judean nationalism and had no room for forgiveness or grace. Nahum’s God seems almost more demonic than divine. He has no pity for those who would die in the destruction of Nineveh. His motto is that of calloused soldiers, “Kill ‘em all. Let God sort ‘em out.”

Nahum’s God reveals more about Nahum perhaps than the true character of God. Nahum spoke from an angry time. His people had been oppressed for over 100 years by a brutal and cruel foreign empire. He wanted vengeance on those oppressors and spoke of a vengeful God who would pour out righteous divine wrath on those same oppressors.

“The God of human history is as much obscured here [in Nahum] as revealed, in images that cannot rise far enough above the limitations of their originating culture.” [i] While Nahum may illuminate the justice and wrath of God, the smoke from his fiery language obscures God's mercy and grace.

Nahum’s message may have been appropriate for his time and place – but it would be foolish and dangerous to try to apply Nahum’s nationalistic hatred towards our enemies today. Though I have heard Christian pastors and teachers making a connection between Nahum and other OT prophets and our national enemies today (Afghanistan, Iraq, N. Korea, etc...)

Nahum was an extremist. Nahum could find no balance. Without going so far as to say “Nahum was wrong,” (I hesitate to declare scripture to be "wrong") I will say that he wasn’t / isn’t complete. We do believe that God is just and that he does judge the wicked and that he does vindicate and liberate the oppressed – but …

We also believe that God does not delight in the death of anyone (Ezekiel 18: 32). We believe that God will pardon and overlook crime – and that he does not harbor anger forever. (Micah 7:18 – 20) We have been taught to love our enemies and to work and pray for their good (Matthew 6: 43 – 48). And that vengeance is best left to God. (Romans 12:14 – 21).

Nahum spoke out of revenge and despair. He was all the things that people believe they are allowed to be when they’re fighting for a cause… He was proud, and stubborn, selfish, and cruel.

He saw only a nationalistic God pouring out wrath on his (Nahum's) enemies. He could not (would not?) see the God who loves and forgives, the God who is merciful to sinners.

May we see the God that Nahum could not.

See Also: The Burden of Nahum

---

[i] Francisco O. Garcia –Treto, The New Interpreter’s Bible Vol. 7, p. 615