chronological bible in a year

We had one final chapter of Isaiah and several from Micah today, all of which were cryptic prophecies regarding end-times. I have always wanted to know more about eschatology but confess that I know very little about it. I could spend hours researching these chapters and still not be able to fully understand nor communicate what is happening. So please take whatever I write regarding end-times prophecy with a grain of salt! I will try my best to succinctly regurgitate what I have read on the subject.

In the 35th chapter of Isaiah, the destruction of Edom is predicted. Verse 8 tells us that "Edom will be paid back for all it did to Israel". The judgement that is described is very severe, which made me wonder what they did that was so bad. Who were the Edomites and what became of them? And why do they figure so prominently in end-times prophecy? For it is not only Isaiah, but also Micah, Obadiah, Joel, Ezekiel, Zechariah, and Jeremiah, who speak of this notable annihilation.

Remember that the Edomites were the descendants of Esau, Jacob's twin brother who sold him his birthright. There had probably always been enmity between them, due in large part to the favoritism shown by their parents, but the rivalry escalated when Jacob stole his brother's blessing from Isaac. Esau settled just south of Judah and married several women from pagan cultures, including an Ishmaelite (the tribe from which modern-day Arabs hail). The Amalekites were part of the Edomites and as a group committed many violent atrocities against Israel. The Edomites eventually joined forces with Nebuchudnezzar in the Babylonian captivity of Israel and delighted in her destruction. In many ways, Edom as a nation continued to act the part of the jealous sibling. Obadiah 1:10 says that because of violence toward it's brother (Israel), Edom would be completely cut off.

Edom was eventually overtaken by other Arab nations before being completely annihilated by the Romans in 106 AD. No one knows what became of the people, as the "Edomites" no longer exist. But they are presumed to have assimilated in and around the Jews themselves, becoming part of the people-group known as Palestinians today. "Edom" therefore is used in reference to Palestinians when discussing end-times prophecy. Referring back to the passage from Obadiah, "violence towards your brother", takes on a whole new meaning. The land the Edomites' occupied is in modern-day Jordan and it's most prominent cities, Bozrah and Petra, are now desolate archaeological dig sites. However, both cities play large roles in end-times prophecy.

Tomorrow's reading: Micah 6-7, 2 Chron. 32:1-8, 2 Kings 18:13-37, Isaiah

Today's reading continued in theme with what we read yesterday. There are several things going on. First, Isaiah speaks of the futility of trusting in "chariots and charioteers" to save Israel from the Assyrian threat. Judah would be judged for her lack of faith, in the form of the Babylonian captivity (Babylon rose to power in the wake of Assyria's downfall). In chapter 30:9-11, the prophet speaks of God's displeasure with the attitude of His people, who only wanted to hear what they wanted to hear... "don't tell us what is right", "tell us nice things", "get off your narrow path", "stop telling us about your Holy One". This description sounds pretty typical of the modern-day church-goer, doesn't it?

Isaiah goes on to talk about the future destruction of Assyria (which would come at the hands of Babylon) and then the future deliverance of Israel. This section refers to end-times doctrine, specifically a time when a righteous king (the Messiah) would come and rule from Jerusalem.

Tomorrow's reading: Isaiah 34-35, Micah 2-5

Isaiah is a double-whammy of difficulty for me, as the book is both prophetic AND poetic. And to make matters worse, he dusted off a Leviathan reference just to really confuse me, (see previously post from January 31st). I never thought I'd say this, but I miss Leviticus! It was crazy in places with it's mildew regulations and rules about what fabrics could be worn together, but it was easy to understand! Isaiah has now transitioned into a vision regarding the future of Jerusalem and the entire earth. It is thought to be apocalyptic in nature, referring to events of the end times when the earth will be destroyed again (though not by flood) and rebuilt, and when God will reign from Jerusalem in that new earth. Yet, like many other prophecies, there is a two-fold fulfillment...one in the near future and one in the distant future. The "near future" fulfillment of Isaiah's vision may have been the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred 100 years after Isaiah's death. Frankly, it is difficult to know exactly what Isaiah is talking about.

Remember, there is a great deal of the Bible that is not meant to be fully understood. God has revealed much of Himself and His plan to us, but not all. I don't know if it frustrates you like it does me when something in the Bible doesn't make sense, but if it does, then join me in reaffirming 1 Corinthians 13:12. It reads, "Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror, then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part, then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known". Someday it will all make sense...

Tomorrow's reading: Isaiah 30-33

Thank goodness the Psalms are actually songs, many of which have been put to music in our time. I have been amazed at how many popular praise and worship songs have sprung to mind as I've been reading the psalms. Their lyrics have been lifted right off the pages of the Bible! We have officially passed the mid-point of the Bible. Did you know that the exact center of the Bible is Psalm 118:8, which reads "It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in men." Interesting trivia. Another interesting thing I learned from the arrangement of the Psalms in the chronological Bible, is that they were not all written by David, nor written during his lifetime. I have never lingered in the Psalms nor given them much thought, and always assumed they were all David's. The Psalms are attributed to David because he wrote the majority of them, with authorship of at least 73 of the 150. But Moses, Solomon, the sons of Korah, Asaph ( David's choir director), and several others also had a hand in composing the book. Additionally, many are anonymous, and therefore of an undetermined date.

After passing through this collection of Psalms, we jump right back into Isaiah and his prophecies regarding the threat of Assyria to Israel and the surrounding nations. Judgement was coming to all of them in the form of military conquest. Israel continued to look elsewhere for help, specifically to Egypt, out of a lack of faith in God's protection. God wanted to make a point, through Isaiah, that hoping in Egypt was futile, as that nation would soon succumb to the Assyrians as well. In Isaiah 20:3-6, he is asked to deliver this message NAKED AND BAREFOOT. Apparently, it was commonplace for a conquering nation to remove captives from the land by stripping them, and essentially humbling and shaming them. Isaiah's humiliation (which he apparently endured without hesitation), was to be an object-lesson to the people of Israel. This prophecy is dated at 713 BC. Israel, the northern kingdom, had already fallen to the Assyrians ten years prior. In 701 BC, twelve years after this prophecy was received, Sennacherib of Assyria conquered Egypt. 100 years later, Assyria fell to Babylon, who began the process of conquering Judah 12 years later.

Tomorrow's reading:Isa. 24-26, 29

You know how I glaze over when I get to a long run of Psalms! Keep reading!

tomorrow's reading: Psalm 47-49, 84, 85, 87

Proverbs 30 and 31 closed out the collection compiled by King Hezekiah's scribes. Noboby really knows who the authors were; whether Agur and Lemuel were actual people or just pseudonyms of Solomon. For example, Lemuel means "belonging to God"' and Agur means "gatherer or collector", both of which could be construed as alternate names for Solomon. And several times in Proverbs, Solomon refers to himself as "the preacher", so it would not have been out of character to use a pen name. However, there are a few clues that work against this theory. For example, the writing style of Agur's poetry was very different than the remaining proverbs. He repeatedly uses the phrase..."there are three things, no four...". A second clue is from one of my favorite verses from Proverbs 30. Agur asks that God give him neither riches nor poverty, yet Solomon was known to be the wealthiest man on earth at the time.

In regard to Lemuel, there is no record in Kings or Chronicles of any king in Israel by that name, so if not Solomon, then he must have been a God-fearing foreign king. There are evidently a number of words borrowed from other languages in the poem, which is consistent with this theory. Some object to the notion that a non-Jew could have penned any book of the Old Testament, but if these men were true believers, why not?! I don't see how this would cause any problems with the authenticity of Scripture because God can inspire whomever He chooses. Many scholars suppose that when Hezekiah's scribes were assembling the king's favorite proverbs, others were included as being the king's current favorites, written much later than Solomon's time.

Proverbs 31 speaks for itself, but I do want to draw your attention to the verse in the previous chapter that asked several questions about the identity of God, specifically the name of His son!!! Awesome....

Tomorrow's reading: Psalm 42-46

As much as I like Proverbs, I can't find much to comment on. I do love that they are succinct and simple and for that reason would make great daily readings for my boys. Just one verse a day could provide lots of discussion about good character, moral living, etc. Completing the entire Bible will be a big accomplishment and we are officially half way there! Keep at it...

Tomorrow's reading: Proverbs 30-31

The opening verse of today's reading stated that Hezekiah reopened and repaired the temple. I had to refresh my memory on what had happened to bring Hezekiah to that place. So in case you have also lost track of what all these kings and kingdoms were up to...here are the Cliff's notes. Hezekiah was the son of Ahaz, who was an evil king in Judah, not Israel. Ahaz had instituted idolatry, closed the temple, and raided the temple of it's valuables in order to pay the Assyrian army for their protection against some of Judah's enemies. By the time Hezekiah reopened the temple, it had been closed 16 years. Hezekiah was not like his father. He restored monotheism by not only reopening the temple, but also reinstating the observance of the Passover and destroying pagan shrines and altars. During that first Passover celebration, the people brought so many sacrifices that the priests could not take care of the offerings and had to enlist the support of the Levites. There was evidently so great a demand that they had to accept the help of those who were not properly cleansed for the ceremony. I like what Hezekiah said about that," May the Lord, who is good, pardon those who decide to follow the Lord, the God of their ancestors, even though they are not properly cleansed for the ceremony". The next verse says that the "Lord listened to Hezekiah's prayer and healed the people. So perhaps these were Levites who were ceremonially unclean due to physical ailments such as rashes and discharges (ah, to be back in Leviticus again...). At any rate, the cool thing about that verse to me, was that it affirms that God looks at the heart, not the behavior. How many times have we seen people annihilated by God for seemingly inocuous infractions like offering "unauthorized fire" or for steadying the cart carrying the ark of the covenant? And yet these people who were neither "clean" nor priests, were allowed by God to serve in the temple. The only difference can be in the hearts of the men themselves.

Had Hezekiah not stepped in when he did, the wrath of God would surely have turned against Judah much sooner. But verses 1 and 21 of the 31st chapter of 2 Chronicles, describe a man who did what was good and pleasing in the sight of God and as a result, was very successful. According to an article I read, there is archaeological evidence for significant population growth and advancement of the culture during Hezekiah's reign. God has said many times in His word, that He desires to bless us if we will just obey. Hezekiah is a great example.

Tomorrow's reading: Proverbs 25:1-29:27

Four nations were dealt with in Isaiah chapters 13 thru 16...Babylon, Assyria, Philistia, and Moab. I did some research to see when/if these prophecies had been fulfilled. Beginning with Babylon...

Chapter 13 is one of those prophecies like the "sign of Immanuel" that has both a near and distant meaning. Babylon did not come to prominence until about 100 years after Isaiah's prophecy. During his lifetime, Babylon was a province of Assyria. But in 609 BC, Babylon defeated Assyria. Four years later, Babylon deported the first group of Jews and completed the captivity in 587 BC. Isaiah pronounced judgement upon Babylon for this, and the "near" fulfillment took place in 518 BC when the Medes (specifically named in 13:9-13) together with Persia, conquered them. The Babylonian king was Nebuchudnezzar. The destruction they experienced at that time however, did not rise to the level of what is described, so many scholars have deemed the Assyrian seige as a partial fulfillment of the prophecy, to be completed to the full at some point in the distant future. The distant prophecy views Babylon as the "end-times" enemy and the king of Babylon as Satan. Verse 14:12 has been interpretted by many scholars as a reference to Satan as being the "son of the morning who has been cast out of heaven". The distant view interprets this passage as coinciding with the events of Revelation.

The prophecy regarding Assyria's judgment, as stated above, was fulfilled when Babylon defeated them.

We haven't read much about Philistia since David and Goliath but know that the two nations were long-term enemies. Isaiah's prophecy stated that Philistai should not rejoice "that the rod who struck you is broken- that the King who attacked you is dead". The rod/king is interpreted as being David's dynasty, which was broken with the death of Ahaz. The prophecy goes on to say that "from that snake a more poisonous snake will be born, a fiery serpent to destroy you". That "more poisonous snake" would be Assyria, who after conquering Israel would invade Philistia within 10 years.

Finally Moab. There had not been a history of great animosity between Israel and Moab, which explains why Isaiah was particularly saddened by the vision he received regarding their destruction. It seems the cause of Moab's judgment was idolatry, judging by verse 16:12. Isaiah was very specific in the timing of this judgment, predicting that it would occur within three years. Moab was also invaded by Assyria sometime between 715 and 713 BC, which fits the time frame.

Tomorrow's reading: 2 Chron. 27:3-31:21

In these chapters, God turned Isaiah's focus from Israel to Judah. Hezekiah, a good king, was in power in Judah when Israel was besieged by Assyria. But in the 100 years that followed, Judah had only one other "good" king (Josiah). This decline in the character of leadership was apparently indicative of the character of the nation, and God would pronounce judgement on them as well, in the form of the Babylonian captivity. This took place in three waves of deportation, beginning in 597 BC and ending in 605 BC. So by virtue of their "good" leadership, Judah survived as a nation roughly 150 years longer than the northern kingdom, depending on whether you count from the beginnings of the wars or the ends. In today's readings, Isaiah discusses the eventual ruin of Judah but also the promise of national restoration, which could refer to the Jews' return to Jerusalem 70 years after the Babylonian captivity to re-establish their kingdom, or to the restoration spoken of in Revelation.

Tomorrow's reading: 2 Kings 16:19-20, 2 Chron. 28:26-27, Isa. 13:1-16:14

As predicted, Israel (referred to by it's capitol city of Samaria) was besieged by the Assyrians in 734 BC. All of the inhabitants but the lowest classes were taken captive and the land was repopulated by people from Babylon and other pagan cities. When those people were given a clear message from the Lord that He expected their respect and obedience, they imported one of the priests of Israel to teach them about worshipping God. His instruction was not impactful however, and the new residents merely incorporated God into their pagan worship. What could have been an incredible conversion opportunity fell flat, possibly because there would not have been any true priests of God left by that time. Remember that when the kingdom divided, the Levites who were ministering in the area of the northern 10 tribes, relocated to Judah and were replaced by Jeroboam with non-Levites. Those priests ministered under 200 years of state-sponsored idolatry and had no idea how to impart reverence for God that they themselves did not possess. There's definitely a lesson in there for us as parents and grandparents. We cannot impart anything to our children/grandchildren that we don't possess ourselves.

Tomorrow's reading: Isa. 1-5:30

I am combining the blog for June 26 and 27 because it is one continuous theme running throughout. The remaining chapters of Hosea focus not on his marriage but more specifically on Israel's infidelity. You can really hear the Lord's pain in today's reading. Hosea recounts all the ways that God had provided for Israel since the time of Jacob and goes on to list Israel's betrayal, in the form of idols, kings, and now the Assyrian army they looked to for protection. The book of Hosea ends with a call to repentance for Israel; one that would be ignored.


Tomorrow's reading: Hosea 9:1-14:9
Reading for June 28: Isa. 28:1-29, 2 Kings 17:5-41, 18:9-12, Isa. 1:1-20

This book of prophecy details the relationship of a man and his adulterous wife, with the intent of paralleling the relationship between God and the idolatrous Israel. The correlation there is obvious, but what has been debated is whether or not this was an actual marriage or a dream or allegory meant to illustrate a point. The conservative Biblical viewpoint is that this was a literal marriage but most scholars admit that it is contrary to the character of God to ask a prophet to marry a prostitute. There are two means of explanation for this.

First, the Hebrew word used for prostitute ("zonah") is too restricted to allow for the meaning of a soliciting prostitute. It refers more to a personal quality than an activity. Accordingly, the meaning of "zonah" would be closer to "promiscuous" than a professional prostitute. Secondly, scholars suggest that in keeping with Hosea's succinct writing style, it is likely that he was combining what he knew at the time of writing the book with what he knew at the time of his marriage. In this view, the story was shortened to be a synopsis of what Hosea knew his wife would later become. The assertion is that God asked Hosea to take Gomer as his wife and that she was not a harlot at the time. Of course, God knew how things would play out and intended to use Gomer's infidelity and Hosea's loyalty to demonstrate His love for Israel.

Personally, I don't see why it is debated at all. God has asked others to do things that one would not think are befitting a follower of his. Abraham is a great example. Granted, God spared Abraham from following through, but he was asked to do something very contrary to God's nature. Yet we don't question that because we understand that God was using the situation to show His people His love.

Tomorrow's reading: Hosea 2:14-8:14

Thank goodness for Isaiah chapter 9 and 11, with their un-debated references to the future Messiah. Though Isaiah prophesies about the immediate deliverance of Judah from her enemies, he is more concerned with prophecy about the distant future, when "out of the stump of David's family (a stump because they would be cut down by the Babylonians) will grow a shoot". Some of the prophecy written in today's chapters was fulfilled in Jesus' first coming and some will be fulfilled when he returns to establish His kingdom on earth.

As an aside, I was intrigued by Isaiah's depiction of Assyria as a "tool" used by God to accomplish His purposes in Israel. Strange to think that our enemies may be just that. Though we usually seek to blame Satan or man, God clearly uses evil people and circumstances at times to get His work done.

Tomorrow's reading: Isa. 12:1-6, 17:1-14, 2 Kings 16:10-18, 2 Chron. 28:16-25; 2 Kings 18:1-8, 2 Chron. 29:1-2; 2Kings 15:30-31, 17:1-4; Hosea 1-2:13

I have actually been wrestling with this post for a while and it involved a good deal of research...even a note to my pastor! What has happened is that Judah has inherited a bad king (Ahaz) and because of his disobedience, is facing attack from the armies of Israel (under Pekah) and Aram (or Syria, with it's capitol of Damascus) under King Rezin. God wanted to assure Ahaz that he would protect Judah by sending destruction upon those two nations in the form of an Assyrian invasion and sent Isaiah to communicate that. But Ahaz was not interested in assurances from God and instead went to King Tiglath-Pileser of Assyria himself to pay tribute and ask to be bailed out of the jam he was in. He did not trust God to take care of him and took matters into his own hands, actually summoning the very nation who would destroy them 150 years later.

What puzzled me was Isaiah's prophecy regarding the "sign of Immanuel". The text reads "Look! The virgin will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son and call his name Immanuel (which means God is with us). By the time the child is old enough to chose what is right and reject what is wrong, he will be eating yogurt and honey. For before the child is that old, the lands of the two kings you fear so much will both be deserted."

I don't know how to consolidate all that I have read on this passage. There are so many components that are debated. Is this a reference to the Messiah or something that had immediate fulfillment in Ahaz's time? How is the word used for "virgin" to be translated? Does thIe Hebrew meaning connote a virgin or simply a young maiden? Is this the same child referred to in chapter 8:3, by the name of Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz or are they two different children? Who was the prophetess mentioned as his mother? It's really convoluted.

Let's start with the first issue...the relevance of the Immanuel sign to present and future audiences. Some scholars say this applies to Ahaz and his immediate circumstances, others say it refers only to christ, and still others favor a "dual fulfillment" position, meaning that the passage had an immediate and future fulfillment. Isaiah is speaking to the house of David, spelled out in 7:13, as opposed to Ahaz alone. At the time of the prophecy, the throne had been threatened by kings Pekah and Rezin, who wanted to overthrow Ahaz and seat the "son of Tabeel" on Judah's throne. God had promised that a descendant of David would always occupy the throne, so the sign of Immanuel was meant to reassure them that this still held true. So did a virgin give birth to a son called Immanuel at that time? We have no record of such, but this Immanuel would not have had the historical importance that the future Immanuel would have. We really don't need to know anything more about him, as he(the present fulfillment) was meant to confirm that God was with them in terms of being on their side. The later fulfillment of Immanuel meant that God was with them literally.

Some scholars argue that the rendering of the word translated "virgin", which is the Hebrew word "almah", should really read "maiden or young woman". This would significantly change the expectation of the prophecy, because we would no longer be looking for a miraculous birth. The word "almah" is used 8 other times in scripture, always referring to unmarried women. The expectation in that culture was that an unmarried woman was a virgin, so the two terms were interchangeable. There was anther word more commonly used for "virgin" ("betulah") and both were used to describe Rebekah when she was discovered by Abraham's servant. In keeping with dual fulfillment, the "almah" in the present situation could have been a virgin at the time Isaiah spoke the prophecy, which would not be miraculous. Future fulfillment would render the word virgin as someone who remained a virgin though pregnant. In addition, the definite article "the" was put before the word
"almah" indicating that this woman was a specific, special person... THE virgin. A unique person. All of these things point toward fulfillment in Jesus as opposed to an Immanuel of that time. Remember that Isaiah was a prophet who saw visions. And he could just as easily have had a vision of something imminent as well as something that would occur centuries later.

So then, who was the child spoken of in chapter 8? His name is given as Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, which means "speed to the spoil, hurry to the plunder", intended to encourage the routing of those two nations by the Assyrian invaders. This child is the son of Isaiah, though scholars disagree about who the mother is. Our text reads "then I slept with my wife" but most translations read "then I went to the prophetess". Some say she was Isaiah's wife, the mother of his son Shear-Jashub, mentioned in 7:3. She was called a prophetess because of her marriage to a prophet. In the same way that a princess is married to a prince. Others who want to blend this account with 7:14 and make these two children one and the same, need for the prophetess to be a virgin. Since Isaiah's wife already had a son, she could not fit the bill, so they conclude that Isaiah's first wife must have died and that he was engaged to a virgin prophetess who would conceive on their wedding night. But chapter 8 does not say that Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz would be born of a virgin, and Immanuel clearly was to be born of a virgin, so why not conclude that these are two separate signs...two separate children? Immanuel was meant to encourage the nation of Judah that someone from the line of David would always reign over them and Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz's purpose was to give chronology to the impending doom of the kings of Aram and Israel. If isaiah's wife became pregnant right away, this would put about 2 1/2 years between this point in time and the beginning of the judgment, since a child usually says "mama" and "dada" before the age of two. This prophecy was given in 734 BC and Damascus (Aram) fell in 732. The child from the first passage in 7:14, indicates that the destruction of these kings would take place before he was old enough to "choose the right and reject the wrong". This age of accountability is generally considered to be 12, which is the exact number of years between the prophecy and the invasion of Israel by the Assyrians. It seems that the children served the purpose of a timeline and nothing more. We never hear of Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz again nor do we hear of a child named Immanuel born in this time. They seem to be merely a means of dating the fulfillment of the prophecy in a poetic way, as opposed to Isaiah simply saying "in 2 years... and then in 12 years...".

But if you believe that Isaiah 7:14 has a prophetic link to the Messiah, there is a much deeper meaning than the immediate context.

Tomorrow's reading: isa. 8:1-22, 9:1-10:34, 11:1-16

Isaiah began to prophesy about 10 years after Amos and followed the same theme of Israel's eminent destruction. Prophets were largely ignored, and some even killed, so the Lord had promised through Amos that at the time of destruction, Israel would long to hear from the Lord (through the prophets) but that there would be a famine in that regard. There would come a time when God would stop speaking to them and pleading for their hearts, and simply turn them over to their own sinful desires. They had so throughly assimilated the neighboring cultures into their own, that God would give them want they "wanted" and allow them to be taken as captives to Assyria. When their captivity was over, they would be scattered throughout the nations, never returning to Israel to re-establish their national identity. This was not true of Judah, who would also be judged and exiled in Babylon, but would return to Israel 150 years later to re-establish the kingdom.

You can see that the throne of Israel is beginning to be really unstable, with the assassinations of Zechariah, Shallum, and Menahem. Pekah was said to rule 20 years, which does not add up mathematically. My resource books indicated that Pekah had actually claimed the throne after Zechariah's death, establishing his headquarters in Gilead and ruling over most of the east bank territory. He and Menahem battled for control of the entire kingdom. When Menahem's own son, Pekahiah, assassinated him, Pekah made his move, quickly assembling a team of 50 men to kill Pekahiah and moving his headquarters to Samaria. When Pekah's reign is counted from the time of Zecharah's death, the twenty year reign checks out. The prophet Hosea, who ministered during this time frame, refers to Israel and "Ephraim" as being two separate kingdoms within Israel. Furthermore, the records of Tiglath-Pileser (a.k.a. Pul), who was the Assyrian king at this time, refers to two kingdoms as well, referring to Israel and "Naphtali". What is confusing to us, was plain as day to the authors of these books, which is likely why there was little time spent explaining the overlapping reigns.

Tomorrow's reading: 2 Kings 15:32-38; 16:1-9; 2 Chron. 27:1-9; 28:1-15; Micah 1-16; Isa. 7:1-25

Amos came on the scene about 10 years after Jonah and preached a message of repentance primarily to the northern kingdom of Israel, who had been dominated by evil kings and rampant idol worship. The book begins by pronouncing judgement upon all of Israel's neighbors for their wickedness before turning on Israel herself. The doom predicted was fulfilled 33 years later when the Assyrians destroyed Samaria and took captive the entire nation of Israel.

tomorrow's reading: Amos -9:15; 2 Kings 14:28-29, 15:6-29; 2 Chron. 26:22-23; Isa. 6:1-13

This is certainly a story that everyone knows backwards and forwards. It is also a story that most skeptics point to as being totally unbelievable. I remembered hearing about a modern-day Jonah in the form of a man being swallowed by a whale and surviving, and actually got many hits when googling it. But that particular story is unfounded. It should be enough, however, to chalk this account up to a miracle. If God can make a donkey talk, part the Red Sea, and raise a man from the dead, why couldn't he "prepare" a fish to swallow a man? He certainly could, and yet I love for things to make rational sense. Amazingly, this does. Apparently, there are at least three big fish that have stomachs capable of swallowing a man whole. And their stomachs would contain air such that a person could breathe. Furthermore, the digestion process would not begin until the person had died, such that as long as Jonah survived, he would not be eaten. Now, it is also possible that the fish (translated from the Hebrew as big fish-not "whale") was a special creation of God made for the sole purpose of sparing Jonah from a drowning at sea. So the story is one that could have happened, and did, because the Bible says it did.

Some theologians want this story to be taken as an allegory foreshadowing Jesus' being in the belly of the earth (death) for three days. But there is nothing in the account that gives us permission NOT to take it literally. All the characters are real historical figures, with Jonah's father even being mentioned. Furthermore, the existence of Ninevah is well substantiated. It was the Capitol of Assyria, which was a dominant and imposing nation at that time. The ruins of Ninevah have been excavated resulting in two mounds, one of which is called "Nubi Yunas", which translated means "Prophet Jonah". The fact that his name is found in the ruins of that great city, which was destroyed just 100 years after Jonah's message, is hard evidence of his historical relevance to the city.

The prophets Amos and Hosea were prophesying concurrently with Jonah and were foretelling Israel's eminent demise at the hands of Assyria. And Jonah would likely have known of this prophecy as well as Assyria's brutal reputation. Read the following excerpt regarding the Assyrian empire...

The Assyrian Empire was known for its cruelty. "Judged from the vaunting inscriptions of her kings, no power more useless, more savage, more terrible, ever cast its gigantic shadow on the page of history as it passed on the way to ruin. The kings of Assyria tormented the miserable world. They exult to record how 'space failed for corpses'; how unsparing a destroyer is their goddess Ishtar; how they flung away the bodies of soldiers like so much clay; how they made pyramids of human heads; how they burned cities; how they filled populous lands with death and devastation; how they reddened broad deserts with carnage of warriors; how they scattered whole countries with the corpses of their defenders as with chaff; how they impaled 'heaps of men' on stakes, and strewed the mountains and choked rivers with dead bones;how they cut off the hands of kings and nailed them on the walls, and left their bodies to rot with bears and dogs on the entrance gates of cities; how they employed nations of captives in making brick in fetters; how they cut down warriors like weeds, or smote them like wild beasts in the forests, and covered pillars with the flayed skins of rival monarchs." (Farrar, The Minor Prophets, pp. 147,148).

So it was not without justification that Jonah was reluctant to go. He may partly have feared for his own life but we know he was revolted at the thought of those people receiving any grace from God. I read that his preaching repentance to Ninevah is akin to a Jew being asked to preach repentance to Germans of the post-war 1940s. Interestingly, Jonah was the only prophet who was asked to preach outside of Israel at that time, (Nahum would later be given the same charge to preach to the Assyrians). The M.O. of the Old Testament was to preserve the godliness of Israel so that other nations would see God through her. It was not until the time of Jesus, and salvation by grace, that the methodology was changed to preach to the Gentiles. So this was a strange and uncomfortable request all the way around for Jonah. Even after he obeyed, he camped out on a hill overlooking Ninevah to see what would happen-almost certainly assuming that the people would not repent and he would get to witness their demise. Due to their repentance, they were not destroyed at this time. However they did return shortly thereafter to their evil ways, eventually taking Israel captive just 35 years after Jonah's message was delivered.

Tomorrow's reading: Amos 1-6:14

Keeping track of all these different kings, many of whom share the same names and reign at the same time, is mind-boggling. This is my second time reading through the Bible and I still don't remember who is who. Maybe the third time will be a charm! But this is Israel's history, and Chronicles and Kings are meant to highlight the dynasties of each kingdom, paying special attention to whether or not each king honored the Lord.

Today we have caught up to Joash and Jehoash (which of course is a variant spelling of Joash). The Arameans were again oppressing the Israelites and King Jehoash came to Elisha to seek God's help. Jehoash was asked to shoot an arrow out the window in the direction of Aram and was told that the arrow represented victory. He then instructed the king to strike the ground with the remaining arrows. I did some reading on the verbiage used here and learned that the Hebrew translation indicates that the king should strike the ground with the arrows in terms of their hitting the ground after being shot from a bow. We don't know how many other arrows there were, but know that Jehoash only did as he was told with three of them, despite having been instructed that they were the Lord's arrows and represented victory. The Bible doesn't record every word of this exchange. What we have is a synopsis, but Elisha's reaction helps us to read between the lines. He was dismayed at Jehoash's lack of faith. Whether he didn't believe God would give him such resounding victory or whether he balked at the simplicity of the symbolic task (as Naaman did when told to wash in the Jordan seven times for healing from leprosy), Jehoash greatly reduced the amount of blessing that God would extend to him.

It is really sad to imagine how many times my lack of faith may have frustrated God's intent to bless me. This account takes me back to that phrase from 2 Chronicles chapter 16. At that time, King Asa of Judah was facing attack from Israel and sought an alliance with ben-Hadad of Aram. The Lord was disappointed that Asa had not sought help from Him as opposed to a pagan king and he spoke these words..."the eyes of the Lord search the whole earth in order to strengthen the hearts of those fully committed to Him. What a fool you have been! From now on you will be at war!"

In both cases, these kings had opportunities for great blessing that were missed opportunities.

Tomorrow's reading:2 Kings 14:1-27, 13:12-13, 15:1-5; 2 Chron. 25:1-28; Jonah 1:1-4:11

After Jehu killed Ahaziah, his mother (who was Ahab's daughter) seized the throne for herself and had all of her grandchildren killed to secure her position. Her daughter was able to hide the youngest of her nephews and he was raised by she and her husband Jehoiada the high priest. At the age of seven, he was proclaimed king and was a godly king as long as he was under the influence of Jehoiada. 2 Chronicles 24:2 says that "Joash did what was pleasing in the Lord's sight throughout the lifetime of Jehoiada the priest". One facet of this that I can't reconcile, is that Jehoiada gave Joash two wives. He was the high priest, which certainly does not mean that he was infallible. He was human after all, and in the end, that's the only explanation for it. Polygamy, particularly among royalty, was so rampant in that culture that it must have seemed very conservative to allow just two wives. Jehoiada was about 100 years old at this time, and had certainly been alive long enough to see the downside of having multiple wives. .It's a shame that monogamy was not the idea that replaced polygamy in his mind. He 'downgraded" the sin to bigamy, but we know that sin is sin, whether it's a little or a lot.

That issue aside, Jehoiada must have had a powerful influence over Joash because after his death, Joash was quickly persuaded to undo Jehoiada's work toward eliminating pagan worship. Furthermore, he was convinced to kill Jehoiada's son! Joash was an example of borrowed faith. He had been riding the coat-tails of Jehoiada's faith, and when he no longer had those coat-tails to ride, he completely fell away from God. It's like a vacuum was created when Jehoiada died and took his faith with him. And in the absence of a faith of his own, Joash was susceptible to any ideology that would fill the void. Same phenomenon as college students abandoning the faith of their parents as soon as they are on their own. Tragic consequences in either case.

Tomorrow's reading: 2 Kings 13:1-25, 12:17-21; 2 Chron. 24:23-27

The last person that Elijah was told to anoint was installed into office in today's reading. Back in 1 Kings 19, he anointed Elisha, Hazael of Aram, and Jehu son of Nimshi. Before Jehu seized the throne, he was told by a prophet of the Lord to destroy the family of Ahab, specifically all of his male descendants. Jezebal was also mentioned by name. This was to avenge Ahab's killing of all of the prophets of God during his reign. He starts off by killing Joram (also spelled Jehoram which was the name of Jehoshaphat's evil son who married one of Ahab's daughters and led Judah into idolatry). The king of Judah (Ahaziah, who was Jehoram's son and Jehoshphat's grandson) happened to be visiting King Joram at the time. Since Ahaziah's father had married one of Joram's sisters, I suppose this made Joram the uncle of Ahaziah. Anyway, he got caught up inthe killing spree and though Jehu had not been told to kill Ahaziah, he did anyway. The accounts of his death in Kings and Chronicles differ, but are not mutually exclusive. It seems that neither account told the whole story and both chose to highlight different aspects. Somehow, he was wounded but escaped the first attack, went and hid in a cave but was later found by Jehu's men and brought to Jehu for execution.

From there, Jehu had all of Ahab's sons killed, as well as Jezebel. He went on to kill some of Judah's officials and Ahaziah's relatives, simply because he happened upon them. Then Jehu killed all the priests of Baal, which may have seemed like a good idea, but was not a directive from God. I was struck by the viciousness and volume of killing that went on in these passages, and felt ill at ease that this was considered the Lord's work. But reading ahead a bit, I found out that God was very displeased with Jehu for his excessive and brutal vengeance. Jehu will have to answer for stepping far beyond what God had commanded him to do, which was only to take out Ahab's sons and Jezebel. At the close of 2 Kings chapter 10, the Lord did say to Jehu that he had done well in "following my instructions to destroy the family of Ahab". He said nothing about the other killings that had transpired, but would render His judgement for that later on.

Jehu's tirade did have one shining moment I must say. Did you not love the fact that he destryoed the temple of Baal and turned it into a public toilet! He did not however, destroy the golden calves that were the original source of idolatry ushered into Israel by Jeroboam son of Nebat. This too would play into God's displeasure with him. The final sentence of the reading states that "he refused to turn from the sins that Jeroboam had led Israel to commit". This sentence is a peek into the heart of Jehu and lets the reader know that he was not a man after God's own heart. He was used as an instrument of God's judgement against Ahab, but he was never really God's man.

tomorrow's reading: 2 Kings 11:1-21, 12:1-16, 10:32-36; 2 Chron. 22:10-12, 23:1-21, 24:1-22

Elisha worked a LOT of miracles. Seems we hear more about Elijah, but my goodness, Elisha was also used mightily of the Lord. There are so many good stories in today's reading, that I want to highlight several. First, I heard an excellent message regarding Naaman's healing given by Priscilla Shirer in her study "Discerning the Voice of God". Her main point was that Naaman delayed his own healing because Elisha (and therefore God) was not healing him in the manner he expected. He felt entitled to a flashy miracle and wanted Elisha to come out to meet him and wave his hand over his leprosy to cure him. Washing in the Jordan (a dirty river that in Naaman's estimation paled in comparison to those in Aram) seven times seemed simplistic and ridiculous to him. Priscilla noted that we often miss out on God's blessing when we question the sanity or legitimacy of something we feel God has told us to do. We talk ourselves out of things that don't fit our expectations of God when we would be better served to simply trust and obey.

In the same Priscilla Shirer study, she spoke of the incident involving the four lepers raiding the deserted Aramean camp. They were feasting on what God had provided (by scaring the Aramean soldiers away from their own camp) after months of starvation when they suddenly realized that it was selfish to keep the blessing to themselves. The parallel she drew compared this to a believer who keeps the good news of salvation to himself instead of returning to his friends and neighbors to share the blessing.

The last story I want to highlight is that of Hazael murdering ben-Hadad. Did Elisha tell Hazael to lie to the king about his fate? No. Elisha spoke the truth, that ben-Hadad would not die of his illness. Under normal circumstances, he would have recovered. But Elisha was aware of the intent of Hazael's heart and knew what he would be willing to do to assume the throne. The servant acted surprised and unsuspecting... "How could your servant, a mere dog, accomplish such a task?" But remember in 1 Kings 19, God had told Elijah to annoint several people... Elisha as his successor, Jehu as the king of Israel, and Hazael as king of Aram. It took years for these people to assume their positions, but Hazael surely knew that he had been chosen as the next king and was probably getting tired of waiting. He saw an opportunity and seized it.

Tomorrow's reading; 2 Chron. 21:8-20, 22:1-9; 2 Kings 8:23-29, 9:1-37, 10:1-31

Remember that the Lord told Elijah to anoint Elisha as his successor back in 1 Kings 19:16, so this passing of the mantle would not have been a surprise. And that Elijah was about to die was no secret, as many within their band of prophets were aware that the Lord planned to take him. The elaborate fashion in which God took him, puts Elijah in a very elite group of people who were taken to heaven without dying first. Enoch is the only other person like this recorded in the Bible, (Gen. 5:24 "Enoch walked with God and then was no more, because God took him away".)

Elisha was able to perform mighty miracles, as his predecessor Elijah had been able to do, even reviving a child from death in the identical manner that Elijah had (laying on top of the dead body and praying). The one story that was disconcerting was the account of the band of youths who taunted Elisha only to be cursed by him and later attacked by bears. Most of the commentaries I read on this story indicated that the original Hebrew word (translated by the NLT as "boys") is better translated as youths or young men. Apparently, the same word was used to refer to teens and men in their twenties, citing examples of Isaac at the time of his sacrifice (he was believed to have been in his early twenties), Joseph in Genesis 37:2 when he was 17, and the army men of 1 Kings 20:14-15. So this was not a group of school boys but a sizable gang of teenagers and/or full-grown men. Their insults were not aimed just at him, but also at God. Our translation says that they jeered "Go away baldy", but most versions read "Go on up, baldy", indicating that they were aware of Elijah's ascension and were mocking that encounter, daring Elisha to replicate it. It reminds me of those who mocked Jesus on the cross, saying essentially "if you're really God, come down off that cross". This attitude may have been representative of the younger generation at that time, and God may have wanted to make an example of them. It does seem harsh to have them mauled by bears, but we have to remember that Elisha did not bring down that punishment. He did curse them, but he left the punishment to God. God's hand of judgement was severe, no doubt, but the occasions in which He withholds punishment are far more numerous.

Tomorrow's reading: 2 Kings 5:1-27, 6:1-24, 7:1-20, 8:1-15

If you take the time to plot out the timeline of these regencies, it's a mess. Fortunately, there is a good explanation. The Bible spells out several instances of co-regencies ( ex. Jehoram and Jehoshaphat and later UzzIah and Azariah while one was incapacitated due to leprosy) which accounts for the discrepancies in dates. I read an article that stated that when co-regencies were taken into account, the dates of Israel and Judah's kings align perfectly with the reigns of other historical figures recorded both in the Bible and other sources.

One thing worth noting is the character of Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat. The Bible says that he "followed the example of the kings of Israel and was as wicked as King Ahab for he had married one of his daughters". Remember that this marriage had brought about the alliance between Ahab and Jehoshaphat that twice displeased the Lord. That poor decision of Jehoshphat's had immediate consequences but also long-standing effects in the downfall of his son. We'll read later that the Lord rose up many adversaries in Jehoram's time because of his disobedience.

Tomorrow's reading: 2Kings 2:1-25, 4:1-44

So we were just getting to know Ahab, and today, he dies. Turns out the prophet he hated was right. Micaiah was probably pulled out of jail in order to prophesy for Ahab and Jehoshaphat and was promptly returned there when he became the bearer of bad news. The kings ignored the word of God and went into battle at Ramoth-Gilead. Evidently, this was one of the towns that Ben-Hadad should have returned to Israel as part of the treaty that spared his life in 1 Kings 20:34. Though it is not entirely clear why Jehoshaphat would have agreed to this unholy alliance, aside from the marriage of their children, participation in the battle made some strategic sense, since Ramoth-Gilead was only 40 miles away from Judah.

Ahab displayed his selfish and cowardly nature by disguising himself but recommending that Jehoshaphat remain in his kingly attire. He hoped to go incognito into battle and put the target on Jehoshaphat's back. But as only God could work out, he was shot in just the right spot by a random arrow. And after bleeding out in the chariot, his blood was licked up by dogs by the pool in Samaria, as had been predicted by Elijah.

Ahab was killed, but Jehoshaphat was also held accountable for ignoring the prophet's words. 2 Chronicles 19:1-2 records the words of Jehu the seer who noted that the Lord was angry with Jehoshaphat for aligning himself with the wicked likes of Ahab. Jehoshaphat's response was to immediately embark on a tour of his territory, instructing the people to return to the God of their ancestors. His humble reaction to God's reprimand, as opposed to Ahab's treatment of Micaiah, is probably what spared him any consequences for his poor decision regarding the battle for Ramoth-Gilead. God is always ready to forgive a heart that is contrite. Remember that he relented on the punishment for Ahab following the murder of Naboth because he humbled himself in repentance and slept in burlap.

The next battle we read about involved Judah and the armies of Moab, Ammon, and Edom. Judah was not a big nation, composed basically of two tribes and a collection of dissenting Jews from Israel. So the attack from three surrounding nations must have been very alarming. Jehoshaphat's words are beautiful. "We are powerless against this mighty army that is about to attack us. We do not know what to do, but our eyes are upon you". God rewards his dependence and trust by utterly decimating the opposing armies before the battle even began.

Tomorrow's reading: 2 Kings 1:1-18, 3:1-27; 1 Kings 22:41-50; 2 Chron. 20:31-37, 21:1-7; 2 Kings 8:16-22

Today's passages paint a good picture of the character of King Ahab. In the first section, the battle between Israel and Aram was depicted, with Israel gaining victory as God had promised. In the next chapter, we learn that God was not pleased that Ahab had negotiated with Ben-Hadad to spare his life in return for a trade agreement. Though the Bible text does not spell it out, God must have given instructions regarding the battle with the Arameans that included the destruction of their king. Because Ahab decided to do it his way, God sent a prophet to inform him of his impending doom.

The circumstances of this report were very unusual and I really wish I had packed all of my fat resource books in my beach bag. There was nothing to be found on the internet about this strange account of one prophet asking another prophet to hit him, and that man being eaten by a lion because he would not strike the first prophet. Why would the prophet ask to be hit? Maybe he needed a black eye in order to wear the bandage that disguised him from the king until he was ready to reveal his identity. I suppose the point is not to question when God asks us to do something, even if it seems crazy. One of the things I say most frequently to my kids is "obey first and ask questions later". When I need for them to do something, I don't particularly want to waste time explaining why they should do it. Simply put, God asked the prophet to do something that he didn't think was a good idea (which I can understand), and he was immediately punished for disobedience. The last guy to be eaten by a lion was the young prophet who disobeyed God's instructions when he believed the lie of the older prophet. The key is to be able to discern the voice of God. One prophet did not act when God spoke and the other acted when He didn't. Both ended up dead.

The next story was Naboth 's vineyard, and it illustrated more about Jezebel, who was clearly the stronger personality of the royal pair. She was so disgusted that Ahab wasn't imposing his authority and demanding compliance from Naboth, that she took matters into her own hands and had Naboth killed. He allowed his wife to take control and was happy to stand aside. This was a apparently indicative of their relationship as a whole, given the words of 1Kings 21:25 "No one else so completely sold himself to what was evil in the Lord's sight as Ahab did under the influence of his wife Jezebel".

Finally, in the account of Ahab and Jehoshaphat teaming up against Aram (they had formed an alliance through the marriage of their children), we see Ahab's petulance and immaturity. When Jehoshaphat asks that they inquire of a prophet of God before proceeding into battle, Ahab states that there is only one and he hates him because he never prophesies anything but trouble for him. Ahab surrounded himself with "yes men" and lacked the character to take criticism or dissent.

tomorrow's reading: 1 Kings 22:10-40, 51-53, 2Chron. 18:9-34, 19:1-11, 20:1-30

Not since Genesis has there been more material packed into one day's reading! Elijah is fed by the widow with a never-ending supply of flour and oil, revives her dead son, calls down fire from Heaven to defeat (and later kill) the prophets of Baal, prays to end the drought, outruns Ahab's chariot, escapes death at the hand of Jezebel, and has an encounter with God while hiding in the cave. It is hard to decide what to elaborate on. Elijah is my husband's favorite character in the Bible and he loves the story of his contest with the prophets of Baal. I read that Mt. Carmel, which was the site of that famous display of God's power, is situated on the border between Israel (Jezreel to be exact) and Phoenicia. This illustrates both a geographical and cultural split, with the Jews worshipping God on one side of the mountain and the pagan Phoenicians worshipping Baal and other gods on the other side. This proximity, along with the leadership of Ahab and Jezebel, had the Israelites playing both sides of the fence. The historical setting for the battle between Elijah and the prophets of Baal is substantiated by the extra-Biblical historian Flavius Josephus, who documented the extended drought and famine described in 1 Kings. Excavations of the Mt. Carmel area have produced artifacts regarding Baal that depict him as the god of storms, rain, great meteorological phenomenon and fertility of the earth. This knowledge makes the contest make sense. Not only should Baal have been able to end the drought as God of rain and storms, but he should also have been able to bring fire from heaven.

After Elijah's resounding victory at Mt. Carmel, he experienced super-natural assistance as he outran Ahab's chariot on foot. Instead of being on a spiritual high, Elijah felt alone and defeated. This was the scene of one of my favorite Bible stories...when God speaks to Elijah in the cave. What I love about this encounter, is that God did mot speak to Elijah in the earthquake or great wind, but in a gentle whisper. I am one who wants God to show up in unmistakable, miraculous ways. I want to see a burning bush! But He does not typically reveal Himself in such ways! Instead, He wants us to tune into His quiet voice. Elijah needed encouragement because he had assumed that he was the only one following God, but the Lord revealed to him that there were 7000 others who had not bowed down to Baal. We're never the only one. This is also true when my 12 year old tells me that he is the only one without a cell-phone. He may feel alone, but there are others out there like him. That usually doesn't make my son feel any better, but Elijah had greater spiritual maturity and took comfort in the fellowship of believers.

Tomorrow's reading: 1Kings 20:23-43, 21:1-29, 22:1-9, 2 Chron. 18:1-8

Today's passages chronicled the reigns of the northern and southern kingdoms of Israel. What struck me was the impact of the decisions that each made. It reminds me of an old saying, tweaked a bit.."As the king goes, so goes the nation". The power that leadership wields in the course of a nation is chilling, and as true today as it was then. The northern kingdom started out with Jeroboam, who set the course for his entire nation when he established pagan temples, idols, and priests, simply out of fear of losing the allegiance of his people. Each king that succeeded him, was said to "follow in the example of Jeroboam, continuing the sins that Jeroboam had led Israel to commit". Each new king was worse than the one who preceded him, reaching new heights of evil during the reign of Ahab and Jezebel.

In the southern kingdom, beginning with Rehoboam (Solomon's son) and continuing through Abijah, Asa, and Jehoshaphat, the leadership followed (or at least attempted to follow) God's will. As a result, they were able to fend off attacks from the northern kingdom as well as other invaders from Libya and Ethiopia. The monarchy was stable, with each of the kings enjoying lengthy reigns unlike the unrest of the northern kingdom where kings and their entire lineage were murdered and some kings reigned as briefly as 7 days. And God was prepared to bless them even further, but was limited by the lack of faith exhibited by Asa, as noted in verse16:9 of 2 Chronicles... "the eyes of the Lord search the whole earth in order to strengthen the hearts of those fully committed to him". It's neat to think that He is always looking for someone to work through; someone who is fully committed. The trick is to be fully committed, which by the example of Asa is harder than it seems. How often do we find ourselves in a difficult situation like Asa did when facing the attack of the northern kingdom, and rather than trust God with the outcome, make our own plan of attack. And when facing a health crisis like Asa did with his feet, spend more time consulting doctors and internet research than God in prayer? Asa was a man of God for sure and was trying to follow in His ways. But his story gives us a gut-check regarding our own faith. God sees beyond our actions into the true affections of hearts. Mercifully, He knows our faith is imperfect and provided Jesus, who is the author and perfecter of our faith.

Tmorrow's reading: 1 Kings17:8-24, 18:1-46, 19:1-21, 20:1-22

The bulk of today's reading dealt with the reigns of the northern and southern kingdoms of Israel. But the most compelling excerpt was the story of Jeroboam and the two prophets. Because Jeroboam was leading his entire nation into idolatry, the Lord sent a young prophet to deliver a prophecy regarding his eventual demise. After the Lord made it clear to Jeroboam that the prophet was legit (remember his hand was paralyzed in the pointing position as he signaled for his guards to kill the prophet), he invited him back to the palace for a meal. I suspect Jeroboam hoped to regain favor with the Lord through this prophet, but the prophet had been instructed not to eat or drink anything while in Bethel. He rightly declined the offer.

But then the story gets strange. An older prophet hears of the presence of the younger prophet and his message from the Lord. Though many true believers had relocated to Judah to escape the idolatry of the northern kingdom, this man had remained. He appears to have been a true follower of God because God does deliver messages through him, so we don't know why he was still living in Bethel. Maybe he liked his life there and was content to be a silent worshipper of God. Maybe he had attained a certain amount of status as a real prophet amongst so many pagan priests and was reluctant to move. Maybe seeing the young prophet in action stirred something in himself or perhaps he was envious that God was using someone else as a prophet in his territory. Who knows what motivated him, but he was certainly eager to intercept the young prophet. When he could not convince the prophet to come home with him, he told the man a lie. That lie was believed by the young prophet, resulting in his disobedience and eventual death. The manner in which he died was clearly supernatural, as the lion who killed him stood watch over his body, devouring neither the prophet nor his donkey, until the older prophet could retrieve him for proper burial.

This story is strange because the young prophet was trying to be obedient and the older prophet lied, and yet it was the former who was attacked by the lion. But I think we could drive ourselves crazy with all of the things that don't seem fair to us...things we experience as well as things recorded in Scripture. So we are better served to try and discern the reason for the story's inclusion in the Bible. What is the practical application? I read a great commentary that outlined take-away points from this story for the younger and more mature believer. For the mature believer, the lesson is to be careful not to misdirect a young believer and cause them to disobey what the Lord is leading them to do. Though usually well-meaning (this particular prophet notwithstanding), older believers can impose their own agendas or ideas onto younger believers in an effort to "guide" them, all the while leading them away from where God is leading. And for the younger believer, the lesson is to be wary of advice given by other Christians...particularly when told that the advice is from the Lord. It is wiser to pray for guidance directly from God, though He certainly can and does use His people to speak for Him at times. If the young prophet had stopped to consult the validity of the older prophet's message, he would not have inadvertently fallen into disobedience. But like him, w are usually rushing headlong into our own agendas, rarely slowing down to consider whether or not the course has been set by God. Fortunately for us, the consequences are not typically so dire as they were for the young prophet.

Tomorrow's reading: 1 Kings 15:16-24, 17:1-17; 2 Chron. 16:1-10, 17:1-19

First,

Today's reading brings us to the end of Ecclesiastes, which closed out with some sound theology. Basically, Solomon is saying enjoy life, especially while you are young, but don't leave God out of it. All of the things we seek out in our youth, pan out to be meaningless in the end, and we will be judged for the choices we have made. The Jewish religion was and is a very works-based religion, bear in mind, so Solomon very literally meant that good and bad deeds would be weighed out before out God. We know that God is interested in our heart's affections and will be concerned only with how well we loved Him and His son. Nonetheless, Solomon did not have that revelation yet and was operating only on what he knew at the time. His final conclusion is sound..."Fear God and obey his commands, for this is man's all.". No pursuit of happiness will satisfy unless one has followed this advice. I haven't noticed anywhere else in the book, but Solomon says "my child" as the preface for his final instructions. Perhaps this was a father's letter to a son. But nowhere in the book does it say "thus saith the Lord", which is why it can be considered truth, but not God's truth. Sometimes man's truth lines up, but not always!

Next we jump back into Israel's history, with the beginning of the divided kingdom. God set up the circumstances that would incite the northern tribes of Israel to revolt, leaving Judah and Benjamin alone to follow the house of David (Rehoboam). The remaining 10 tribes sided with Solomon's servant Jeroboam. The Levites all sided with Judah and those living within the northern tribes relocated to that land. To ensure that the people of the northern tribes did not lose affection for him while traveling to Jerusalem to make sacrifices, Jeroboam set up his own temples and gods within his territory. So essentially, in order to solidify his power and position, he sold the souls of all within his kingdom. They never returned to the Lord and suffered a much quicker demise than did Judah.

Tomorrow's reading: 1Kings13:1-15:34, 2Chron. 11:18-23, 12:1-16, 13:1-22, 14:1-20, 15:1-19

More confusing theology from Solomon today, particularly as it relates to death and the afterlife. The Bible is known as "progressive revelation" meaning that God has revealed His plan gradually, building the New Testament on the foundations laid in the Old. The concept of resurrection was uncommon during Solomon's time, though the Jews of the first Temple period did believe that the souls of the righteous and unrighteous went to a place called Sheol which was a place of oblivion...kind of a "soul sleep". This is reflected in Solomon's thoughts about death in verse 9:3-4...

"It seems so tragic that everyone under the sun suffers the same fate. That is why people are not more careful to be good. Instead they choose their own mad course, for they have no hope. There is nothing ahead but death anyway".

There is an awful lot in that statement that we know to be untrue, thanks to the continued revelation of New Testament theology. Everyone doesn't suffer the same fate, it doesn't matter whether or not people are "good", we do have hope, and there is more ahead than just death. This is a great example of what has always bothered me about Ecclesiastes. It isn't Christian theology and sounds so WRONG. But this is not God speaking. These are the words of the Teacher, and he was a man limited by his humanity, his time in history, his culture, and his own warped take on life, skewed by bad choices. While there is some good wisdom in Solomon's writings, even in Ecclesiastes, it must be read with it's flawed human author in mind.

tomorrow's reading: Ecc. 11:7-12:14, 1Kings 12:1-33, 2Chron. 10:1-19, 11:5-17

Though I have never read Ecclesiastes in it's entirety before the chronological Bible read-through of 2009, I have always thought it an odd book for God to have included in the Bible. So much of it's content reflects hopelessness and leaves the reader no hint of the fruits of the Spirit (peace, love, joy, patience, etc.) that one would expect to find in a Biblical book on the meaning of life! how could an inspired work miss the mark so completely?

In my research on the book of Ecclesiastes, I found a great explanation. The book is unique in that it is the only book that is inspired and yet full of error. That makes me uncomfortable even to type, but here's what I read from Ray Stedman of Peninsula Baptist Church...

The book of Ecclesiastes, or "the Preacher," is unique in scripture. There is no other book like it, because it is the only book in the Bible that reflects a human, rather than a divine, point of view. This book is filled with error. And yet it is wholly inspired. This may confuse some people, because many feel that inspiration is a guarantee of truth. This is not necessarily so. Inspiration merely guarantees accuracy from a particular point of view; if it is God's point of view it is true; if it is man's point of view it may be true, and it may not. If it is the Devil's point of view it may or may not be true, as well, but the Devil's ultimate end, of course, is evil. Inspiration guarantees an accurate reflection of these various points of view.

Therefore the Bible does have much error in it. Whenever false views of men are quoted or set forth, the Bible is speaking error. Whenever Satan speaks, most of his statements are in error, and even the truth that he uses is twisted and distorted, and therefore is erroneous. So it is quite possible to "prove" all kinds of utterly false things by quoting the Bible, because in that sense the Bible is filled with error. The Bible always points out the error which it presents and makes it clear that it is error, as is the case with this book. Because of its remarkable character, Ecclesiastes is the most misused book of the Bible. This is the favorite book of atheists and agnostics. And many cults love to quote this book's erroneous viewpoints and give the impression that these are scriptural, divine words of God concerning life.


This made sense to me. The words of Ecclesiastes are true... they are an accurate representation of what Solomon was feeling at this stage of life. This is truth as he saw it. But his words do not represent God's truth. I think that is why the book had always bothered me. It just didn't feel right and seemed to be in such stark contrast with the character of God. It felt like one big discrepancy. But there are plenty of things in the Bible that are not meant to impart God's truth but rather tell a story of what actually happened. So why include this "story"? I supposed because Solomon's words are relevant to us, as citizens of this world who find ourselves consumed with things that are "meaningless" like wealth, pleasure, power, work, and planning for the future. Aside from the darkness and despondency of the "meaningless" diatribe, Solomon offers people one outlet for contentment in life... that they should "eat, drink, and enjoy their work during the short life God has given them, and to accept their lot in life". In other words, don't chase after happiness in all the places Solomon did, but
instead be content with the blessings God has given you and ENJOY them!

Tomorrow's reading: Ecc.7-11:6

This is where the wheels come off for Solomon. God held up his end of the bargain. Solomon has been given wealth, wisdom, peace on all sides, and harmony within his kingdom. But David had charged him before he died to keep the ways of the Lord, and that if he did so, his descendants would never fail to have a man on the throne of Israel, (1 Kings 2:2-4). But Solomon's polygamy which led to idolatry, rendered that contractual arrangement null and void. So Solomon learns that his legacy will be forever tarnished and that the kingdom of Israel will no longer rest with his descendants. It was likely his despondency over the bad choices he had made that led to this severe punishment, which prompted him to write the words of Ecclesiastes.

In keeping with this discipline, God raised up two adversaries.. Hadad and Razon. There is no extra-Biblical record of either person, though archaeology has confirmed the existence of Shishak, who is the first named Pharoah of the Bible. Egyptian records describe a pharoah at that time named Shesonq, who invaded Israel. Jeroboam is tapped as the man to whom the kingship would be given for 10 tribes, which would be known as Israel. The remaining kingdom would be called Judah, as it was comprised of the tribe of Judah. This was illustrated in Ahijah the prophet's tearing of Jeroboam's cloak into 12 pieces, giving Jeroboam 10 pieces and keeping one for the house of David. But 10 plus 1 equals 11, and there are 12 tribes of Israel. What happened to the 12th tribe? Some scholars believe the omitted tribe was Levi, since they had no land and were scattered among the other tribes as priests, therefore having no distinct tribal identity. Some believe the twelfth tribe was Simeon, which was eventually absorbed into Judah and ceased to be a distinct group. Others believe the missing tribe was Benjamin, who had divided loyalties and could not be counted on either side definitively. Either way, the divided kingdom was the beginning of the end for Israel.

Tomorrow's reading: Ecc. 1:12- 6:12

Why does poetry have to be so hard to understand??? With all of the poetic imagery used, it is difficult to know what is actually going on, and that drives me crazy! The reason for the vague imagery is obvious... this is a very explicit book and the verbiage is delicately chosen. All the places where you think there may be a sexual reference, there definitely is. The overall purpose of the book and the most likely reason for it's inclusion in Scripture, is to relate the importance of monogamous, marital love. This message is two-fold, in that it also relates to the importance of monogamy between Israel and the Lord, though it is unclear to scholars whether or not Solomon intended the double meaning. Most think it is simply what it appears to be... a love poem from a man to his new bride. The poem appears to be broken into three sections... the courtship, the wedding night, and the deepening relationship, and includes two dream sequences during which the Shulamite woman goes looking for Solomon.

Where things get murky is in trying to figure out who the main characters are. Solomon is generally credited with authorship, but some dispute whether or not he is the lover of whom the Shulamite woman speaks. Solomon was king, so why would he be tending sheep. Some scholars believe that he met his bride while on vacation at a "country home" and was out in the flocks for leisure. Others believe the shepherd refers to the Shulamite's true love, before being pledged to the king.

And who was the Shulamite woman? Was she Pharoah's daughter, who is mentioned several times as Solomon's wife? Was she one of Solomon's many concubines, but one who truly stole his heart? Verse 6:8 mentions 60 wives, 80 concubines, and virgins beyond number. We know from other portions of Scripture that Solomon had over 700 wives and 300 concubines, most of whom were political arrangements for the purpose of treaties or trade agreements. This woman was special, but evidently not special enough to transform Solomon into a monogamous man. For clearly he added wives and concubines to his harem after his marriage to the Shulamite woman. It wasn't until the end of his life that he realized that he had vainly chased after pleasure at the expense of true happiness. We'll read about that in Ecclesiastes.

Maybe it is not important to know who these people are. Maybe the point is simply to see the beauty of fresh love between a man and his bride. The Shulamite woman is never referred to as Solomon's wife, but instead as his bride, his beloved, his darling, etc. Our spouses are to be adored and that is a healthy tap on the shoulder for me...

Tomorrow's reading: 1 Kings 11:1-43, 2 Chron. 9:29-31, Ecc. 1:1-11

Proverbs are a great read for me, and I find so many great nuggets of wisdom in them, as you would expect. But like Psalms, there is not much for me to research or analyze, so let's just keep reading together and jump back into the daily blogs when we hit Song of Solomon. I won't stay away so long this time!

The speaker in chapter 8 is wisdom, personified. Though verses 22-36 sound alot like Jesus upon first glance, it is clear that Solomon is referring to a creation of God, ("the Lord formed me from the beginning, before he created anything else"). SInce Jesus is God, He is eternal as well and cannot be thought of as a creation of God. So these verses are a continuation of the first part of the chapter, where the speaker is wisdom itself.

Tomorrow's reading: Prov. 11, 12, 13

The first nine chapters of Proverbs were lengthier discourses on the value of wisdom in general. Note that Solomon does not necessarily practice what he preaches. He elaborates extensively on the benefit of marital fidelity and yet had 700 wives and 300 concubines himself. It seems that later in life Solomon came to realize his own folly in this and other areas (material gain, power and position), in the writing of the Book of Ecclesiastes.

Beginning with the 10th Proverb, the writings are more succinct and targeted at specific areas of practical living. Advice is given in the form of bullet points which are generally recognized as being true, but not true in every instance. For example, it is generally but not always true that lazy people are poor and hard workers get rich (Proverbs 10:4). It is not always true that fear of the Lord lengthens one's life while the years of the wicked are cut short (Proverbs 10:27), though it is true that Godly people make better lifestyle choices than the wicked, which results in longer life. So when reading Proverbs, do so with an eye for general but not universal truths.

Tomorrow's reading: Prov. 11,12,13

The readings since we concluded Psalms have focused on Solomon and his building of the Temple. Reading about what a massive and opulent structure it was, caused me to wonder what archaeological evidence remains of the Temple. There is lots of very interesting information about this on sites as basic as Wikipedia. We all know that the Temple Mount is a highly contested piece of property between the Jews and Muslims. Both groups consider it to be sacred. After Israel became a recognized state in 1948, it was given authority over the Temple Mount but left control of the area to the Muslim group known as the Islamic Trust, or Waqf. Excavations have never been permitted on the Temple Mount due to the political and religious climate. However, in 2004, the Waqf began some reconstruction on the mosque that currently stands on the Temple Mount, which involved underground work and subsequent excavation. The dirt that was dug out from under the mosque, was discarded in a city dump after the Waqf expressed no interest in it. An Israeli group petitioned for permission to sift through the rubble, which they have since been doing. They have found scores of artifacts covering a span of several thousand years, including an artifact that represents the first thing found from the 1st Temple period. It is a small seal bearing the name of a priest who was mentioned in Jeremiah 20:1. It will take many more years to go through all of the dirt, but historical evidence does exist for the Temple Solomon built. The Western Wall, or Wailing Wall, is the only remnant of the Second Temple, which is why it is so important to the Jews. Solomon's Temple was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BC and rebuilt about 400 years later, only to be destroyed again by the Romans in 70 AD.

Now we move into Proverbs, which is one of my favorite books!

Tomorrow's reading: Proverbs 8,9,10

Solomon asked for and was given wisdom. His extraordinary wisdom was recognized by rulers of other nations who sent ambassadors to him. In today's reading, we begin to read a sampling of some of the 3000 proverbs he authored. He extols the value of wisdom but is quick to point out that the Lord is the One who grants it.

Tomorrow's reading: Prov. 5-7

The kingdom had been divided by Solomon into twelve provinces, each of which was responsible for providing food for the king's household and royal court. This was essentially taxation. It is not known how large Solomon's household was, though we know that he had 700 official wives and 300 concubines, so must have had quite a few children. It is estimated however, that the monthly food requirements of each governor would feed anywhere from 15,000 to 35,000 people, which is far more than what could have been needed.

Tomorrow's reading: Prov. 1, 2, 3

Solomon apparently did everything exactly as he was commanded in constructing the Temple and, as promised, God rewarded him with riches. His success was noted and his alliance was sought-after by prominent rulers. He was given luxurious gifts from other kings, which partly explains his immense wealth. Once such gift included many towns given to him by King Hiram of Tyre. This king had supplied all of the cypress and cedar timber for the Temple and had been given 20 Israeli towns in compensation. The Bible notes that he was not pleased with these towns, calling them "worthless". So it seems that he returned them to Solomon as a gift. Solomon was also an excellent businessman, working shrewdly within the trading industry. It was perhaps a trade mission that bought the Queen of Sheba to see him. She is well-documented historically in the Koran, the Bible, the writings of Josephus, and in Turkish and Persian paintings. However, the exact location of Sheba is disputed. It seems likely to have been in modern Yemen, some 1200 miles from Israel. The Queen may have been seeking a business or military alliance with Solomon and the "hard questions" that she asked were probably diplomatic and ethical, in order to determine his fit for partnership.

Ethiopian tradition holds that the royal family of Ethiopia hails from the Queen and Solomon. They claim that he fathered a son through her named Menelik and that Menelik returned to his father and stole the Ark of the Covenant. There is a cathedral in Ethiopia called St. Mary's that claims to house, under guard, the authentic Ark. As a result, they apparently believe themselves to be God's chosen people. None of this can be proven but it does lend credence to the historicity of the Queen herself and the Biblical account of her encounter with Solomon.

Tomorrow's reading:1 Kings 4:1-34; Ps. 72, 127

Of particular note regarding the dedication of the Temple, are the words of the Lord stating His conditional covenant with Israel. They would have His blessing and favor only so long as they did not turn away from Him to follow other gods. Knowing them, and knowing all things, God was aware that they would fall into idolatry and that He would give them over to the Assyrians and Babylonians. They would be captives and their Temple destroyed. God predicted that people would one day wonder why the Lord would "do such terrible things to this land and to this temple", but the responsibility would rest squarely with them.

tomorrow's reading: 2 Chron. 8:1-18, 9:1-28; 1 Kings 9:15-10:29; 2 Chron. 1:14-17

Because there is not much apologetic commentary to be made about the poetry of Psalms, I will jump back in with the research and blogs when we emerge from Psalms on May 20th! Here is the daily reading list until that time...

May 9th: Ps. 27-32
May 10th: Ps. 35-38
May 11th: Ps. 39-41; 53, 55, 58
May 12th: Ps. 61-62; 64-67
May 13th: Ps. 68-70; 86; 101
May 14th: Ps. 103; 108-110; 122; 124
May 15th: Ps. 131; 133; 138-141; 143
May 16th: Ps. 103; 108-110; 122; 124
May 17th: Ps. 50; 73-74
May 18th: Ps. 75-78
May 19th: Ps. 79-82

Tomorrow's reading: Psalm 22-26

The last words of David were recorded in Second Samuel, probably penned by the prophet Gad. Other historical books were listed as references for the life of David, including the Record of Nathan the Prophet and the Record of Gad the Seer. These books have not been recovered and are not thought to be sacred but rather historical accounts of David's reign.

Interestingly, David's final words involved several scores he wanted settled by his son. Remember that Joab had killed Abner, who had been Saul's military commander and foe of Joab, when he tried to switch alliances. And Joab had killed Amasa, his cousin, after he had been given his job as commander of the army. Twice he had felt threatened in his position and twice killed innocent men because of it. To shed blood in peacetime as if in battle was a criminal offense. And of course, he had also killed David's son Absalom.

Shimei was a relative of Saul's and had descended upon David at an all-time low. He was on the run from Absalom while his son was attempting to overthrow his kingship, and Shimei began to taunt him... probably after harboring years of resentment about the throne being taken from his family. After David returned to jerusalem as king, Shimei begged forgiveness and David vowed not to kill him. What he was saying to Solomon was basically "keep an eye on him and if he steps out of line, kill him without hesitation". A zero-tolerance policy was put into effect and it was just three years before Shimei did something to deserve execution.

Tomorrow's reading: here come the Psalms...12-17; 19-21

David was about 70 years old at this time, which was the average life expectancy according to Psalm 90, and in very poor health. Abishag was brought in to be a nurse to him in a manner very unconventional to us today. But the Bible is clear that this was not a sexual arrangement, albeit an awkward one for a young girl to be cuddling an elderly king! In his infirmity, David's oldest son Adonijah makes a run at the throne but is thwarted by Solomon's mother Bathsheba as well as David's loyal advisers. Though Solomon had already been named as David's successor, the proclamation was made again during Adonijah's self-propelled inauguration banquet. That successfully squelched Adonijah's plans and sent his supporters fleeing. Adonijah himself ran to the tent of meeting to grab onto the horns of the altar. Evidently, this was a practice used by people accused of a crime. The horns provided safety until a judgement could be rendered. If the accused were found guilty of their crime, they would be removed from the altar to serve out the appropriate punishment. Adonijah was essentially pardoned by Solomon for his act of treason.

Tomorrow's reading: 1 Kings 2:1-12; 2 Samuel 23:1-7; 1 Chron. 29:26-30; Psalm 4,5,6,8,9,11

It is obvious from David's micro-managing of the Temple details that he would have loved to be the one to build this for the Lord. But he carried the ball down the field as far as the Lord would allow and handed it off to Solomon. Some information about Solomon... He was not David's firstborn (Amnon was but was killed by Absalom in retaliation for the rape of Tamar) nor was he the oldest living son (Adonijah was), but God had told David that he would be king and David had made that public knowledge..


We saw in 2 Sam. 12:24-25 that when God gave Solomon the special name of “Jedidiah” (beloved of Jehovah) this was an intimation that Solomon would be the next king.

In 1 Chron. 22:9 we read that even before he was born the Lord announced that Solomon was called to be king over Israel, ‘Behold, a son will be born to you, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side; for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quiet to Israel in his days.”

In 2 Chron. 22 and 28 when David announced the building of the new Temple, he publicly admitted that the Lord had told him that Solomon was to succeed him as king :

In 1 Chronicles 28:4-7 David says, “4 “Yet, the Lord, the God of Israel, chose me from all the house of my father to be king over Israel forever. For He has chosen Judah to be a leader; and in the house of Judah, my father’s house, and among the sons of my father He took pleasure in me to make me king over all Israel. 5 “Of all my sons (for the Lord has given me many sons), He has chosen my son Solomon to sit on the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel. 6 “He said to me, ‘Your son Solomon is the one who shall build My house and My courts; for I have chosen him to be a son to Me, and I will be a father to him. 7 ‘I will establish his kingdom forever if he resolutely performs My commandments and My ordinances, as is done now.’”

David swore privately to Bathsheba that Solomon her son would succeed him as King (1 Kings 1:13,17). This will become crucial when David is advanced in years and others come forward to claim his throne.


Tomorrow's reading: 1 Chron. 29:1-22; 1 Kings 1:1-53

There was a great deal of "lot casting" involved in dividing the duties of the Levites in preparation for the building of the Temple. It is a practice that is quite uncommon to us as New Testament Christians, because we have the Holy Spirit through whom to determine God's will. Jews of the Old Testament did not, and utilized different measures for discernment. I have copied below a succinct description of what is known about the practice of casting lots...



CASTING LOTS
"What was the practice of casting lots?"
The practice of casting lots is mentioned 70 times in the Old Testament and seven times in the New Testament. In spite of the many references to casting lots in the Old Testament, nothing is known about the actual lots themselves. They could have been sticks of various lengths, flat stones like coins, or some kind of dice; but their exact nature is unknown. The closest modern practice to casting lots is likely flipping a coin.
The practice of casting lots occurs most often in connection with the division of the land under Joshua (Joshua chapter 14-21), a procedure that God instructed the Israelites on several times in the Book of Numbers (Numbers 26:55; 33:54; 34:13; 36:2). God allowed the Israelites to cast lots in order to determine His will for a given situation (Joshua 18:6-10; 1 Chronicles 24:5,31). Various offices and functions in the Temple were also determined by lot (1 Chronicles 24:5,31; 25:8-9; 26:13-14). The sailors on Jonah's ship (Jonah 1:7) also cast lots to determine who had brought God's wrath upon their ship. The 11 Apostles cast lots to determine who would replace Judas (Acts 1:26). Casting lots eventually became a game people played and made wagers on. This is seen in how the Roman soldiers cast lots for Jesus’ garments (Matthew 27:35).
The New Testament nowhere instructs Christian to use a method similar to casting lots to help with decision making. In Acts chapter 1, when the apostles cast lots to determine who would replace Judas, this likely was not God’s desire for the apostles. Jesus had repeatedly told the apostles to wait for the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-5), who would instruct them and give them wisdom. That is how we are to discern God’s will today – not by casting lots, rolling dice, or flipping a coin.


Tomorrow's reading: 1 Chron. 26:1-28:21

Two conflicting statements are made regarding David's decision to take a census of the fighting men of Israel. Samuel states that God caused David to conduct the census, while Chronicles states that it was Satan. We have seen several examples before of blame being ascribed to God for something He merely allowed or for putting the preliminary circumstances in place. So it can be said that Satan tempted David in this way, but that God allowed it. Ultimatley, God is in control, so if Satan accomplishes anything, it is with God's consent and useful in His "big picture" plan. That said, why was the census such a bad thing that made God so angry? The implication in numbering the fighting men, is that David was trusting in manpower over God-power. Joab must have recognized this, as he expressed his concern in verse 24:3, "why, my Lord the king, do you want to do this?"

Adding to the confusion of this account, is a discrepancy regarding the actual numbers. Those given in Samuel are lower than the corresponding figures in Chronicles. All three of my resource books said the same thing, and the explanation works out perfectly. The discrepancy between the numbers can be reconciled by noting who was included in each rendering. The numerical difference between the two works out to be exactly the number of the regular army of Israel and Judah. It seems they were not included in the totals given in Samuel. As specified in 1 Chronicles 27:1-15, the army of Israel consisted of 288,000 men. In 2 Chronicles 1:14, we learn that there was a separate division of 12,000 within the city of Jerusalem. Combined, these numbers make up the difference of 300,000 that exists between the two totals given for Israel. Judah's difference of 30,000 can be explained by the size of the standing army of that nation listed in 1 Chronicles 21:6. I love it when a discrepancy is that easy to resolve!

Another such discrepancy exists in the price of the threshing floor David paid to Araunah. First of all, let me say how much meat there is in David's statement to Araunah that he would "not present an offering that cost him nothing". For all of his mistakes, this is the kind of thing that shows David's heart. He had a chance to get the threshing floor scot free, but declined on principle. He understood that a sacrifice was not meaningful unless the giver actually "sacrificed". How often do we pray and read our Bibles, only after we've gotten everything else done? How often do we offer service to the church only when it fits conveniently into our schedules? How often do we give tithes and offerings out of our "left-overs"? In essence, how often do we offer sacrifices that cost us nothing?

Back to the variance between the prices listed in the two accounts. Another good explanation can be found, based on the difference between what was being bought in each account. In Samuel, the price of 50 shekels of silver refers to the threshing floor itself, which would not have been a sizable or particularly valuable structure. It was worth about what he paid for it, and could have reasonably been offered as a gift by Araunah. In Chronicles, a price of 600 pieces of gold is listed but refers to a larger piece of property. The translation of the Chronicles phrase for threshing floor is actually "the site" or "the place", meaning that David purchased the land on which the threshing floor was situated. This land was Mount Moriah, which was the very spot where Abraham laid Isaac on the altar.

The final passages from today's reading dealt with David's preparation for building the Temple. He had been told that he would not be the one to build it, but that his son Solomon would. And so David took it upon himself to set Solomon up well for the enormous task in front of him. Sometimes we are the one called to do something for God and other times we are called to equip someone else to do the job. One role does not take precedence over the other, as it takes all parts of the body working together to accomplish it's purpose.

Tomorrow's reading; 1 Chron. 23:1-25:31

I have a confession to make. I do not enjoy the Psalms. I love history, prophecy, and really love Proverbs, but I get bored with Psalms. I don't really care for poetry in general and often find myself wanting David to get to the point! I wish I was better equipped to tune into the beauty of his songs of worship, but I will confess to you that they leave me wanting to skim. I hope that is not the case for most of you, as I know many people enjoy the book of Psalms above all others. My favorite thing about reading Psalms is stumbling across a phrase or two that I recognize from popular worship songs. The two songs from today are very similar, exact replicas in some places, and are reminiscent of a song I learned in Young Life years ago...

"I will call upon the Lord
Who is worthy to be praised.
So shall I be saved from my enemies...
the Lord liveth,
and blessed be the rock
and let the God of my salvation be exalted..."


Tomorrow's reading: 2 Sam. 24:1-25; 1 Chron. 21:1-22:19

There always seemed to be someone waiting for an opportunity to usurp the throne! Some "teacher's pet" style jealousies erupted over which tribes were entitled to David's affections. The disgruntled tribes produced a troublemaker by the name of Sheba who sought to divide the kingdom by taking the allegiance of the 10 tribes of Israel. To squelch this rebellion, David summoned Amasa, who had been made commander of the army over Joab shortly after Absalom had been killed. The Bible does not say whether or not David knew that Joab had killed Absalom, but it is certainly likely as there was no other obvious reason for his demotion. It was probably out of jealousy that Joab killed his cousin Amasa, or was perhaps an effort to regain his position as commander. After the beheading of Sheba, verse 20:23 states that Joab was "over Israel's entire army", so he was evidently reinstated.

Now... the Gibeonites. I had to look back to see who they were and what their significance was. these were the people who had come to Joshua in the desert under false pretenses and tricked him into making an alliance with them, The Israelites had been told not to make alliances with any of the peoples living in the Promised Land, but the Gibeonites had convinced Joshua, who did not consult the Lord, that they were from a distant land. Very shortly thereafter, the Gibeonites called upon the Israelites to defend them against an enemy at Gilgal. This was the battle where the sun stood still for 24 hours. As punishment for their deception, they were made bondsmen and wood cutters for the Isrealites. Saul, however, had not honored the treaty with the Gibeonites and had made an attempt to annihilate them. Somehow the Lord communicated to David (through Nathan the prophet, the Umim and Thummim, or by direct revelation) that a recent famine was the result of this unsettled score. To make amends, David agreed to turn over 7 sons of Saul to be executed for the crimes against the Gibeonites. This was in keeping with Mosaic law, which allowed for the "avenger of blood" (the nearest male blood relative of a person who had been killed; Num. 35:16-25) to execute the murderer. This situation did not entirely correspond with the intent of the "avenger of blood" law, but I think David must have recognized the need for propitiation. Because it was not legal to execute one man for the crimes of another, (Ez. 18:4, "the soul who sins is the one who will die"), Saul's sons must have been complicit in the crime. In fact, the opening verse of chapter 21 explains the famine by stating... "It is on account of Saul and his blood-stained house".

Tomorrow's reading: 2 Samuel 22; Psalm 18