Micah's End-Times Prophecy

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

Isaiah continued

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's vision

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

Emerging from the Psalms

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

Later Psalms

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

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

More Proverbs

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

Hezekiah

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

Isaiah's Prophecies for surrounding nations

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

Isaiah's prophecy on Judah

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

Israel Falls

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

Hosea Part 2

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

Hosea

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

More Messianic Prophecy

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

Prophecy of Isaiah

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

Prophecy Regarding Israel' Destruction

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

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

Jonah

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

Elisha Dies

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

King Joash

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