Glad you stopped by today--whether this is your first time or if you are a regular visitor. I hope that the Q&As and reflections are helpful with your journey through the Bible in 2009. Can you believe we're almost halfway done?! Kudos to you for continuing to read--even if you're a little behind, just stick with it!
Here's the question and answer from Tuesday:
There is one LOOOONG sentence in 2 Corinthians 6. How many verses long is it?
7 verses: 2 Corinthians 6:4-10
And here's the question and answer of the day for Wednesday:
Who succeeded Ahaz as king? (2 Kings 16)
2 Kings 16:20 20 Ahaz rested with his fathers and was buried with them in the City of David. And Hezekiah his son succeeded him as king.
And here's the question of the day:
Who is Paul especially delighted to see happy because his spirit has been refreshed by the Corinthians? (2 Cor 7)
And here's the reflection of the day:
Reading 2 Kings is like watching a tennis match. Back and forth Israel and Judah go, from one king to another. We see Assyria and Samaria going through the same thing. One after another a new king takes the throne, does "what is evil in the sight of the Lord," and is dethroned.
Imagine having such a terrible succession of kings. I know there's probably be one or two presidents in a row that you've probably not cared for, but that's nothing compared to this parade of (evil) kings.
You'd think they would have learned their lesson after the first couple of incidents. It seems that if God is not pleased with you, you shouldn't expect to last long on the throne. So why the kings continue to emulate evil kings--and NOT David--is beyond me.
There is one verse that seems to encapsulate exactly what their problem is: "The Israelites secretly did things against the LORD their God that were not right" (2 Kings 17:9). More than just doing things 'against the Lord their God'--which is terrible in and of itself--but they did them SECRETLY! Or, so they thought.
Nothing is really secret from God, though we would like to think so. We may be able to (and probably do) keep secrets from friends and family, but we are unable to keep secrets from the all-knowing and all-seeing God. And it is utter foolishness to think that we can hide from God.
I know that when I consider the eternal question "to sin or not to sin," more often than not, I consider whether I might get caught in the act of sinning by someone from the church or a friend or a family member. I never consider whether or not I might get caught by God; that is a foregone conclusion for me. OF COURSE God is going to catch me in the act of sinning. What idiot would think you could hide something like sin from God??
Well, the nation of Israel in 2 Kings, for one. Their concept and picture of God is still not yet fully developed. They do not yet understand the immanence of God--the "accompanying us through the every day"-ness of God. Nothing can be kept a secret from God because God is present in our every day lives, seeing our every day actions and hearing our every day words.
Have a splendid day!
Allison
Showing posts with label king. Show all posts
Showing posts with label king. Show all posts
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
A Perfect King
Hello! Glad you stopped by today. Let's get down to business. . .
Here's the question and answer from yesterday:
Sun, Mar 22: Deuteronomy 15 describes something called the “Year of Jubilee.” What do you think of it? Why do you think God commanded it?
This is really more of an opinion question based on what you've read about the Year of Jubilee. There isn't exactly a right or wrong answer.
And here's the question of the day:
Mon, Mar 23: How many witnesses is it necessary to have in order to put someone to death? (Dt 17—I know, I know, what a macabre question!)
And here's the reflection of the day:
Ancient Israel basically had four types of administrators to run their society: priests, judges, kings, and prophets. Throughout the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible), we have heard lots and lots and lots about the role of the Levites (sons of Levi), who were designated as the priests of Israel.
Deuteronomy 17 mentions the role of the king for the first time. Remember, up until this time, Moses and the elders/judges have been the ones keeping track of everyone as Israel wandered through the wilderness, while the Levites took care of the tabernacle (the place where God's presence dwelled).
But now that they are on the edge of the Promised Land, ready to take possession of it, God reveals to them a new plan for their administration. Once they are settled, they will be more than a community of faith; they will become a whole nation. And a whole nation needs strong leadership, leadership in the form of a king, right? The writers of Deuteronomy seem to think of a king more as a concession rather than something indispensable, though other places in the Bible seem to think that a king IS a necessity (Clements, NIB Commentary on Deuteronomy).
The writers of Deuteronomy give us an outline for "A Perfect King." His power is modest: he should not have a lot of personal resources (horses, wives, etc), he is to study the law "all the days of his life" so that he may learn to revere the Lord his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees," and he should not consider himself better than others. (If you know anything about Israel's history, you know that very few kings actually live up to these standards, creating a terrible succession of very IMPERFECT kings.)
The role of the king of Israel was VERY different from the typical king of the day. Generally, the kings claimed they were appointed by God, "chosen and supported by an act of divine will, enabling kings to exercise a form of 'divine' rule on earth" (Clements). Human kings acted on behalf of--and in the place of--God. So kingship in ancient Israel was a theocracy, where the "anointed of God" had a divine rule over his people. What this means is that whatever a king did, he could claim it was by divine authority and is unquestionable.
Societies "received" their kings, rather than choosing them. Kingship had the potential to be a powerful and inherently oppressive form of government. It didn't have to be that way. Certainly, the writes of Deuteronomy sought to put safeguards in place against such corruption.
When the Bible talks about kings and leaders, it doesn't really assassinate someone's character, but neither does it gloss over one's mistakes. What the Bible wants to emphasize is that kings (and all leaders, whether civil leaders or church leaders, which are essentially the same thing for them) are "simply servants of a higher power and a more perfect justice" (Clements).
In our day, it's a little harder to hold leaders to this accountability, at least our "worldly" leaders. Though it is nice when politicians remember that they work for the people who elected them, I don't want to equate taxpayers with a "higher power." That alone is the position which God holds. Maybe it is time for more believers to be involved in both church government AND the civil government. In that way, we know that at least some of our leaders are in the same vein as Deuteronomy's idea of a good leader: one who will "follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees."
Just a thought!
Allison
Here's the question and answer from yesterday:
Sun, Mar 22: Deuteronomy 15 describes something called the “Year of Jubilee.” What do you think of it? Why do you think God commanded it?
This is really more of an opinion question based on what you've read about the Year of Jubilee. There isn't exactly a right or wrong answer.
And here's the question of the day:
Mon, Mar 23: How many witnesses is it necessary to have in order to put someone to death? (Dt 17—I know, I know, what a macabre question!)
And here's the reflection of the day:
Ancient Israel basically had four types of administrators to run their society: priests, judges, kings, and prophets. Throughout the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible), we have heard lots and lots and lots about the role of the Levites (sons of Levi), who were designated as the priests of Israel.
Deuteronomy 17 mentions the role of the king for the first time. Remember, up until this time, Moses and the elders/judges have been the ones keeping track of everyone as Israel wandered through the wilderness, while the Levites took care of the tabernacle (the place where God's presence dwelled).
But now that they are on the edge of the Promised Land, ready to take possession of it, God reveals to them a new plan for their administration. Once they are settled, they will be more than a community of faith; they will become a whole nation. And a whole nation needs strong leadership, leadership in the form of a king, right? The writers of Deuteronomy seem to think of a king more as a concession rather than something indispensable, though other places in the Bible seem to think that a king IS a necessity (Clements, NIB Commentary on Deuteronomy).
The writers of Deuteronomy give us an outline for "A Perfect King." His power is modest: he should not have a lot of personal resources (horses, wives, etc), he is to study the law "all the days of his life" so that he may learn to revere the Lord his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees," and he should not consider himself better than others. (If you know anything about Israel's history, you know that very few kings actually live up to these standards, creating a terrible succession of very IMPERFECT kings.)
The role of the king of Israel was VERY different from the typical king of the day. Generally, the kings claimed they were appointed by God, "chosen and supported by an act of divine will, enabling kings to exercise a form of 'divine' rule on earth" (Clements). Human kings acted on behalf of--and in the place of--God. So kingship in ancient Israel was a theocracy, where the "anointed of God" had a divine rule over his people. What this means is that whatever a king did, he could claim it was by divine authority and is unquestionable.
Societies "received" their kings, rather than choosing them. Kingship had the potential to be a powerful and inherently oppressive form of government. It didn't have to be that way. Certainly, the writes of Deuteronomy sought to put safeguards in place against such corruption.
When the Bible talks about kings and leaders, it doesn't really assassinate someone's character, but neither does it gloss over one's mistakes. What the Bible wants to emphasize is that kings (and all leaders, whether civil leaders or church leaders, which are essentially the same thing for them) are "simply servants of a higher power and a more perfect justice" (Clements).
In our day, it's a little harder to hold leaders to this accountability, at least our "worldly" leaders. Though it is nice when politicians remember that they work for the people who elected them, I don't want to equate taxpayers with a "higher power." That alone is the position which God holds. Maybe it is time for more believers to be involved in both church government AND the civil government. In that way, we know that at least some of our leaders are in the same vein as Deuteronomy's idea of a good leader: one who will "follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees."
Just a thought!
Allison
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
