Day 1
2 Kings 17 - 20
Fall of Samaria. I had always thought that the ten tribes were merely scattered everywhere. Clarke has an interesting alternative to this on 17:6:
Took Samaria] According to the prophets Hosea, Ho 13:16, and Micah, Mic 1:6. He exercised great cruelties on this miserable city, ripping up the women with child, dashing young children against the stones,
Carried Israel away into Assyria] What were the places to which the unfortunate Israelites were carried, or where their successors are now situated, have given rise to innumerable conjectures, dissertations, discourses, on the coast of Guinea; others, in America; the Indian tribes being the descendants of those carried away by the Assyrians. In vol. i. of the Supplement to Sir Wm. Jones's works, we find a translation of the History of the Afghans, by Mr. H. Vansittart; from which it appears that they derive their own descent from the Jews. On this history Sir Wm. Jones writes the following note:-
"This account of the Afghans may lead to a very interesting discovery. We learn from Esdras, that the ten tribes, after a wandering journey, came to a country called Arsaret, where we may suppose they settled. Now the Afghans are said by the best Persian historians to be descended from the Jews; they have traditions among themselves of such a descent, and it is even asserted that their families are distinguished by the names of Jewish tribes; although, since their conversion to the Islam, they studiously conceal their origin. The Pushtoo, of which I have seen a dictionary, has a manifest resemblance to the Chaldaic; and a considerable district under their dominion is called Hazarek or Hazaret, which might easily have been changed into the word used by Esdras. I strongly recommend an inquiry into the literature and history of the Afghans." Every thing considered, I think it by far the most probable that the Afghans are the descendants of the Jews, who were led away captives by the Assyrian kings.
Thus ended the kingdom of Israel, after it had lasted two hundred and fifty-four years, from the death of Solomon and the schism of Jeroboam, till the taking of Samaria by Shalmaneser, in the ninth year of Hoshea; after which the remains of the ten tribes were carried away beyond the river Euphrates.
The rest of this chapter is spent in vindicating the Divine providence and justice; showing the reason why God permitted such a desolation to fall on a people who had been so long his peculiar children.
Day 2
2 Kings 21 – 25
Josiah's reform and the fall of Jerusalem. This section starts with something that's been on my mind for a while. Moloch worship. I fall into the camp that thinks this worship required actual human sacrifice. It is fun to compare different versions of the bible for their take on the position.
Consider 21:6
- Moffatt: “He burned his son alive...”
- NIV: “He sacrificed his own son in the fire...”
- Jubilee2000: “He made his son pass through the fire...”
- GodsWord: “He burned his son as a sacrifice...”
- BBE: “He made his son go through the fire...”
 I have read elsewhere that Clarke does not think Moloch worship included human sacrifice, but I've read much newer works (Chesterton, et. al.) that say differently.
Clarke on Leviticus 18:21
Verse 21. Pass through the fire to Molech] The name of this idol is mentioned for the first time in this place. As the word molech or melech signifies king or governor, it is very likely that this idol represented the sun; and more particularly as the fire appears to have been so much employed in his worship. There are several opinions concerning the meaning of passing through the fire to Molech. 1. Some think that the semen humanum was offered on the fire to this idol. 2. Others think that the children were actually made a burnt-offering to him. 3. But others suppose the children were not burnt, but only passed through the fire, or between two fires, by way of consecration to him. That some were actually burnt alive to this idol several scriptures, according to the opinion of commentators, seem strongly to intimate; see among others, Ps 106:38; Jer 7:31, and Eze 23:37-39. That others were only consecrated to his service by passing between two fires the rabbins strongly assert; and if Ahaz had but one son, Hezekiah, (though it is probable he had others, see 2Ch 28:3,) he is said to have passed through the fire to Molech, 2Ki 16:3, yet he succeeded his father in the kingdom, 2Ki 18:1, therefore this could only be a consecration, his idolatrous father intending thereby to initiate him early into the service of this demon.
Aside from all of that, We have the interesting case of Josiah. Funny thing is, that I almost read over the pivotal difference “He did what was RIGHT in the eyes of the Lord.” There is a first time for everything I suppose.
Clarke on 22:8
I have found the book of the law] Was this the autograph of Moses? It is very probable that it was, for in the parallel place; 2Ch 34:14, it is said to be the book of the law of the Lord by Moses. It is supposed to be that part of Deuteronomy (xxviii., xxix., xxx., and xxxi.,) which contains the renewing of the covenant in the plains of Moab, and which contains the most terrible invectives against the corrupters of God's word and worship.
The rabbins say that Ahaz, Manasseh, and Amon endeavored to destroy all the copies of the law, and this only was saved by having been buried under a paving-stone. It is scarcely reasonable to suppose that this was the only copy of the law that was found in Judea; for even if we grant that Ahaz, Manasseh, and Amon had endeavored to destroy all the books of the law, yet they could not have succeeded so as to destroy the whole. Besides, Manasseh endeavoured after his conversion to restore every part of the Divine worship, and in this he could have done nothing without the Pentateuch; and the succeeding reign of Amon was too short to give him opportunity to undo every thing that his penitent father had reformed. Add to all these considerations, that in the time of Jehoshaphat teaching from the law was universal in the land, for he set on foot an itinerant ministry, in order to instruct the people fully: for "he sent to his princes to teach in the cities of Judah; and with them he sent Levites and priests; and they went about through all the cities of Judah, and taught the people, having the book of the Lord with them;" see 2Ch 17:7-9. And if there be any thing wanting to show the improbability of the thing, it must be this, that the transactions mentioned here took place in the eighteenth year of the reign of Josiah, who had, from the time he came to the throne, employed himself in the restoration of the pure worship of God; and it is not likely that during these eighteen years he was without a copy of the Pentateuch. The simple fact seems to be this, that this was the original of the covenant renewed by Moses with the people in the plains of Moab, and which he ordered to be laid up beside the ark; (De 31:26;) and now being unexpectedly found, its antiquity, the occasion of its being made, the present circumstances of the people, the imperfect state in which the reformation was as yet, after all that had been done, would all concur to produce the effect here mentioned on the mind of the pious Josiah.
Day 3
Jeremiah 8, 19, 24, 27
I wasn't very self-aware during these readings, but did manage to note more Biblical support for child sacrifice.
19:5 and have built high places unto Baal, to burn their sons with fire [for] burnt offerings unto this same Baal, which I did not commanded, nor speak, neither did [it] come into my mind.
Wesley on that verse:
To burn - This and the following verse, contain another great sin of this people, with the punishment which God proportions to it. The sin in the general was idolatry, but a most barbarous species of it, mentioned also chap.7:31 32:35, where it is said, they made their sons and their daughters pass thro' the fire to Molech; the place where they did it is called Tophet, ver.19:6, of which also mention is made, Isa 30:33. Baal and Molech, signify the same thing; Baal signifies a Lord, Molech a King. Both Baal and Molech seem common names to all idols.
Day 4
Jeremiah 37 – 39
Jeremiah in prison. Perhaps I am loyal to a fault, but I just cannot imagine Jeremiah accepting kind treatment from Nebuchadnezzar. Even after what his own country had done to him, it still seems like a betrayal to fraternize with the Babylonians.
Day 5
Isaiah 28 – 30
Warnings to Jerusalem. Yay! More warnings.
Lamentations 1 – 5
Sorrow over Jerusalem. Sounds like times might have been bad after Jerusalem fell. It's hard to say for certain, but things may have been in a little disarray after Jerusalem fell. Consider this a parallel for man. More often than not, we make a ruin of our great potential. The greater the potential for good, the further a thing might fall.
Clarke gives this interesting prologue missing from modern translations:
In all copies of the Septuagint, whether of the Roman or Alexandrian editions, the following words are found as a part of the text: And it came to pass after Israel had been carried away captive, and Jerusalem was become desolate, that Jeremiah sat weeping: and he lamented with this lamentation over Jerusalem; and he said."
The Vulgate has the same, with some variations:-"Et factum est, postquam in captivitatem redactus est Israel, et Jerusalem deserta est, sedit Jeremias propheta fiens, et planxit lamentations hac in Jerusalem, et amaro animo suspirans et ejulans, digit." The translation of this, as given in the first translation of the Bible into English, may be found at the end of Jeremiah, taken from an ancient MS. in my own possession.
I subjoin another taken from the first PRINTED edition of the English Bible, that by Coverdale, 1535. "And it came to passe, (after Israel was brought into captyvitie, and Jerusalem destroyed;) that Jeremy the prophet sat weeping, mournynge, and makinge his mone in Jerusalem; so that with an hevy herte he sighed and sobbed, sayenge."
Matthew's Bible, printed in 1549, refines upon this: "It happened after Israell was brought into captyvite, and Jerusalem destroyed, that Jeremy the prophet sate wepyng, and sorrowfully bewayled Jerusalem; and syghynge and hewlynge with an hevy and wooful hert, sayde."
Becke's Bible of the same date, and Cardmarden's of 1566, have the same, with a trifling change in the orthography.
On this Becke and others have the following note:-"These words are read in the LXX. interpreters: but not in the Hebrue."
All these show that it was the ancient opinion that the Book of Lamentations was composed, not over the death of Josiah, but on account of the desolations of Israel and Jerusalem.
The Arabic copies the Septuagint. The Syriac does not acknowledge it; and the Chaldee has these words only: "Jeremiah the great priest and prophet said."
I also enjoyed Clarke's treatment of verse 1:
How doth the city sit solitary] Sitting down, with the elbow on the knee, and the head supported by the hand, without any company, unless an oppressor near,-all these were signs of mourning and distress. The coin struck by Vespasian on the capture of Jerusalem, on the obverse of which there is a palm-tree, the emblem of Judea, and under it a woman, the emblem of Jerusalem, sitting, leaning as before described, with the legend Judea capta, illustrates this expression as well as that in Isa 47:1. See Clarke on Isa 3:26, where the subject is farther explained.
For those of you who just cannot get enough textual criticism, let us examine the tail end of 1:7 in detail.
- Moffatt: and the foe gazed gloating on her downfall.
- Jubilee2000: the enemies saw her [and] mocked at her days of rest.
- Vulgate: et deriserunt sabbata eius
- ACV: the adversaries saw her; they mocked at her desolations (NOTE The ACV hates modern translations... yet it agrees here on this difficult passage.)
- GodsWord: and they laughed at Jerusalem's downfall.
- Geneva 1599: and did mocke at her Sabbaths.
- Webster: [and] mocked at her sabbaths.
- UKJV: and did mock at her sabbaths
- Rotherham: mocked over her sabbath-keepings.
- LITV: laughed at her annihilations.
Clarke took a similar interest in the verse:
mishbatteha. Some contend that Sabbaths are not intended here. The Septuagint has "her habitation;" the Chaldee, al tubaha, "her good things;" the Syriac, [Syriac] al toboroh, "her breach." The Vulgate and Arabic agree with the Hebrew. Some of my oldest MSS. have the word in the plural number, mishbatteyha, "her Sabbaths." A multitude of Kennicott's MSS. have the same reading. The Jews were despised by the heathen for keeping the Sabbath. Juvenal mocks them on that account:-
cui septima quaeque fuit lux Ignava et partem vitae non attigit ullam. Sat. v.
"To whom every seventh day was a blank, and formed not any part of their life." St. Augustine represents Seneca as doing the same:-Inutiliter id eos facere affirmans, quod septimani ferme partem aetatis suae perdent vacando, et multa in tempore urgentia non agendo laedantur. "That they lost the seventh part of their life in keeping their Sabbaths; and injured themselves by abstaining from the performance of many necessary things in such times." He did not consider that the Roman calendar and customs gave them many more idle days than God had prescribed in Sabbaths to the Jews. The Sabbath is a most wise and beneficent ordinance.
Often times, it is brought up by non-Christians that visiting the sins of the father on the son is an injustice. It is actually pretty simple logic to refute this, but I also thought it interesting that Clarke had this to say on the subject:
Our fathers have sinned, and are not] Nations, as such, cannot be punished in the other world; therefore national judgments are to be looked for only in this life. The punishment which the Jewish nation had been meriting for a series of years came now upon them, because they copied and increased the sins of their fathers, and the cup of their iniquity was full. Thus the children might be said to bear the sins of the fathers, that is, in temporal punishment, for in no other way does God visit these upon the children. See Eze 18:1,
Ez 18:2 What mean ye, that ye use this saying concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge?
Snippet from Mathew Henry on that verse:
Evil manners, we say, beget good laws; and in like manner sometimes unjust reflections occasion just vindications; evil proverbs beget good prophecies. Here is,
I. An evil proverb commonly used by the Jews in their captivity. We had one before (ch. xii. 22) and a reply to it; here we have another. That sets God's justice at defiance: "The days are prolonged and every vision fails; the threatenings are a jest." This charges him with injustice, as if the judgments executed were a wrong: "You use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, now that it is laid waste by the judgments of God, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge; we are punished for the sins of our ancestors, which is as great an absurdity in the divine regimen as if the children should have their teeth set on edge, or stupefied, by the fathers' eating sour grapes, whereas, in the order of natural causes, if men eat or drink any thing amiss, they only themselves shall suffer by it." Now, 1. It must be owned that there was some occasion given for this proverb. God had often said that he would visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, especially the sin of idolatry, intending thereby to express the evil of sin, of that sin, his detestation of it, and just indignation against it, and the heavy punishments he would bring upon idolaters, that parents might be restrained from sin by their affection to their children and that children might not be drawn to sin by their reverence for their parents. He had likewise often declared by his prophets that in bringing the present ruin upon Judah and Jerusalem he had an eye to the sins of Manasseh and other preceding kings; for, looking upon the nation as a body politic, and punishing them with national judgments for national sins, and admitting the maxim in our law that a corporation never dies, reckoning with them now for the iniquities of former ages was but like making a man, when he is old, to possess the iniquities of his youth, Job xiii. 26. And there is no unrighteousness with God in doing so. But, 2. They intended it as a reflection upon God, and an impeachment of his equity in his proceedings against them. Thus far that is right which is implied in this proverbial saying, That those who are guilty of wilful sin eat sour grapes; they do that which they will feel from, sooner or later. The grapes may look well enough in the temptation, but they will be bitter as bitterness itself in the reflection. They will set the sinner's teeth on edge. When conscience is awake, and sets the sin in order before them, it will spoil the relish of their comforts as when the teeth are set on edge. But they suggest it as unreasonable that the children should smart for the fathers' folly and feel the pain of that which they never tasted the pleasure of, and that God was unrighteous in thus taking vengeance and could not justify it. See how wicked the reflection is, how daring the impudence; yet see how witty it is, and how sly the comparison. Many that are impious in their jeers are ingenious in their jests; and thus the malice of hell against God and religion is insinuated and propagated. It is here put into a proverb, and that proverb used, commonly used; they had it up ever and anon. And, though it had plainly a blasphemous meaning, yet they sheltered themselves under the similitude from the imputation of downright blasphemy. Now by this it appears that they were unhumbled under the rod, for, instead of condemning themselves and justifying God, they condemned him and justified themselves; but woe to him that thus strives with his Maker.
Day 6
The questions are just bad this week. I would have thought that by now we'd be getting into deeper topics than this.
When were you given a second chance?
Every waking moment of my life. The law is onerous. The sooner everyone realizes that, the better.
When were you held strictly accountable for your actions?
Never, not once.
How might an organization suffer the consequences of its actions? How could a business experience judgment?
See Clarke above on the punishment of nations. Same concept.
Can you describe times when nations have been “weighed on the scales and found wanting?”
As said before, the law is heavy. No one ever measures up to it and finds that they are anything less than evil. |
