Unexpected Bookends: 2 Chronicles 32

Reading 2 Chronicles 32 the other day, I was struck by the way in which the chronicler opens and closes the chapter. The first and last verses act as unexpected bookends that hold the material in between together, 2 Chronicles 32:1, 33. 

Hezekiah is something of a rarity in Chronicles. He is one of the good guys, matching up to the godly standard set by David, 2 Chronicles 29:2. In 2 Chronicles 29-31, the king leads Southern Kingdom in a programme of thoroughgoing reformation. He cleanses the temple in Jerusalem from the filth of idolatry. He reforms temple worship according to the biblical pattern. He revives the ancient feast of the Passover that had long been neglected. He ensures the priests and Levies are provided for and that they carried out their ministry in the temple. The Chronicler summarises Hezekiah's reforms in the most glowing terms, 2 Chronicles 31:20-21. 

It is something of a shock, then to read the opening words of 2 Chronicles 32, "After these things and these acts of faithfulness, Sennacherib king of Assyria came and invaded Judah and encamped against the fortified cities, thinking to win them for himself.". Not what you might expect. Following unparalleled faithfulness, Hezekiah finds himself under siege. The kingdom is in peril. Where did that come from? 

Times of blessing and advance often provoke a backlash. It doesn't seem as though the Lord was disciplining Hezekiah by sending Sennacherib against him. Hezekiah was no Ahaz (2 Chronicles 28). But the Lord was testing his servant to see whether he would remain faithful while surrounded by the Assyrian hordes. Hezekiah stood firm by taking practical measures to withstand the siege (2 Chronicles 32:1-5, preaching (2 Chronicles 32:6-8) and prayer (2 Chronicles 32:20-23). 

Similarly in church life, a fellowship may seek to be faithful to the Lord in their life and witness and experience some fruitfulness and blessing. Then comes trouble, from within, or without. That 'trouble' does not call into question the reality of former blessing. But difficulties and setbacks are a test of our spiritual resilience. By way of response we could do little better than take a leaf from Hezekiah's book. We should take practical measures can to address problems in the fellowship. But above all we need preaching and prayer to see us through in the face of enemy attack, Ephesians 6:10-20. 

The siege is broken, 2 Chronicles 32:21. 

Hezekiah dies as the chapter draws to a close. The king is buried in honour. Mention is made of his "good deeds" (2 Chronicles 32:32-33). But 2 Chronicles 32 ends on a devastating note, "And Manasseh his son reigned in his place." One of the best is followed by one of the worst. If not the worst. Manasseh systematically undid his father's reforms. His anti-Yahweh zeal is detailed in 2 Chronicles 33:1-9. 

Unexpected bookends. 

The cycle of faithfulness and failure in Chronicles ends with the Babylonian captivity of the Southern Kingdom. Not quite. The final paragraph points to life after Babylon, 2 Chronicles 36:22-23. Never again, however, would a king in the line of David sit upon the throne of Israel. 

Whole Bible unexpected bookends.

Adam lost his crown - and ours. 

David's successors lost their crown.

A new David won his crown by his Cross. 

The Last Adam crowned - and we in him. 

Did Jephthah really sacrifice his daughter?

In my report of Joel Beeke's morning addresses at the recent Aberystwyth Conference, I mentioned that the preacher used Jephthah's daughter (Judges 11:34-40) as an example of "contagious submission" to the Lord. As I said in the report, I profited greatly from Beeke's messages. I have nothing but respect and admiration for Joel Beeke as a godly man and able minister of the gospel. But I disagree with his view that Jephthah did not really sacrifice his daughter as a burnt offering. This is not a matter of huge importance and I don't want to carp on about it, but a comment was left asking me why I differ from Beeke on this point, so here goes.

Let me say right now that this is one of the most troubling passages in the turbulent book of Judges and so we must proceed with some caution. On the face of it, the textual evidence seems to be stacked against Beeke's view. Compare Judges 11:30-31 with Judges 11:39. We are told that Jephthah fulfilled his vow. He offered to the Lord as a burnt offering the first thing to meet him when he returned from battle - his daughter. But the preacher offered seven reasons why in his opinion Jephthah did not really consign his only daughter to the flames. I will take them one by one and offer a response in blue type.

1. Jephthah was not a rash man. He negotiated with the elders of Gilead before becoming their leader (Judges 11:1-11).

But normally level headed people sometimes act impulsively. Just because Jephthah was a tough negotiator does not mean that he was incapable of making a rash vow on the brink of a make-or-break battle. Indeed, wasn't the vow itself a misguided attempt to bargain with the Lord?

2. He was familiar with Scripture and so would have known that sacrificing ones children was contrary to the law of the Lord.

The judge was certainly in command of biblical history as Judges 11:12-28 shows. No doubt he was aware of the prohibitions on human sacrifice in the Pentateuch. But this is the period of the Judges, when "everyone did what was right on his own eyes" (Judges 21:25). Presumably Samson, the very next judge, would have been aware of the laws against intermarrying with pagan women, but that didn't stop him, Judges 14:1-3.

3. The Spirit of the Lord was upon Jephthah.

True, Judges 11:29, but once more, the Spirit of the Lord also came upon Samson before he married a Philistine wife (Judges 13:25) and after (Judges 14:6, 19). It seems that the Spirit of God clothed the judges with power to kill lions, lead armies and fight battles, but his coming upon a person did not necessarily have a powerful sanctifying effect.

4. Judges 11:31 could be read to mean that Jephthah left two options open. He vowed that whatever came out of his house to meet him (this seems to indicate purposeful human action), would either "surely be the LORD’s, or [Beeke's translation] I will offer it up as a burnt offering" (Judges 11:31). In other words a human being would be dedicated to the LORD in some way, while an animal would be sacrificed on the altar.

Beeke posits that we read the Hebrew prefix waw as "or" rather than "and" in this verse. That seems like an unlikely reading as in the majority of cases waw when used in this way usually means "and". For what it's worth, none of the more serious English Bible translations (AV, NKJV, NIV, ESV) render the text as Beeke suggests.

Besides, what does "shall surely be the LORD's" mean in this case? Beeke argues that it it means a man or woman would be devoted to the LORD's service in an perpetually unmarried state. Hence Jephthah's daughter bewailed her virginity (Judges 11:38) because as one devoted to the LORD she could never marry. However, there is no evidence from elsewhere in the Old Testament of men or women forswearing marriage to devote themselves to the Lord. Even the high priest was free to marry! Having to live as a virgin with no possibility of marriage or children would have been a heavy blow for an Israelite woman. In this instance it would have meant the end of Jephthah's family line. But as Matthew Henry points out, "had she only been confined to a single life, she need not have desired two months to bewail it in: she had her whole life to to that. Nor needed she to have taken such a sad leave of her companions". The dutiful daughter bewailed her virginity because she was going to die a virgin, not because she was going to have to live as a virgin.

Also Beeke argued that even if we should not read "and" as "or" in this text, the language of "burnt offering" is sometimes used in a figurative sense in the Bible. That may well be so, but there is no indication of this being the case in Judges 11.

5. Jephthah had time to change his mind about literally sacrificing his daughter to the LORD. She was given two months grace (Judges 11:37).

Yes, but still we are told that after the period ended, he "carried out his vow", Judges 11:39.

6. Even if Jephthah did make a rash vow, Leviticus 5:4-6 offered him a get out clause.

That is the case, but we are not told that the judge availed himself of this provision and substituted an animal for his daughter. "She returned to her father, and he carried out his vow with her which he had vowed" (Judges 11:39 emphasis added).

7. Jephthah is never reprimanded for his actions in Scripture. He is even mentioned as a hero of the faith in Hebrews 11:32.

Fair enough. But the author of Judges is not prone to editorialise on the faults of the characters covered in his book. Writing in the Deuteronomic tradition, he expects his readers to know right from wrong without him having to point it out in a moralistic fashion. He usually prefers to let the facts speak for themselves. Judges 21:25 is enough to tell us that much that happened in the period of the Judges was profoundly disordered. Even the best of men in that time were deeply flawed and prone to sin.

Womanising Samson also gets a mention in Hebrews 11, not to mention Abraham who could be a little economical with the truth, Jacob the manipulative twister, and David who committed adultery. Inclusion in Hebrews 11 does not give a man or woman a clean bill of spiritual and moral health. The chapter was written to illustrate the faith by which we are justified (Hebrews 10:38-39). As Luther famously pointed out, we are "simultaneously justified and yet sinners". Beeke made a good stab at exonerating Jephthah of the dreadful crime of human sacrifice, but I'm afraid that the text, at least as I understand it does not let him off the hook.

See Dale Ralph Davis' commentary on Judges, (Christian Focus), p. 144 for a defence of the view that Jephthah tragically kept his vow to offer his only daughter as a burnt offering to the LORD. Ironically perhaps, DRD is the main speaker for Aber 2010.

Another week in my life: Day 4

We have our Prayer Meeting/Bible Study on a Wednesday evening. Tonight we'll be looking at 3 John, which completes a trilogy of studies on John's three letters. The format is discussional, but I still do some prep, studying the letter with the aid of commentaries by John Stott (Tyndale IVP) and David Jackman (Bible Speaks Today IVP). Stott is really outstanding, giving concise and accurate and thought-provoking comment. But before I get down to business, my wife and I have to give Rebecca's hamster, Oliver its daily dose of antibiotics. The poor thing seemed like it was at death's door last Wednesday so we took it to the vet. He has a "wet tail" infection that is potentially fatal. But he has been responding well to treatment. Trying to get him to take his medicine is a bit tricky. We have to feed it to him through a plastic syringe and he wriggles and squirms like crazy while we are trying to dose him up. Ah well, "a righteous man careth for his beast."

That done I work on an outline for the Bible Study, structured around the three people John mentions in his letter, Gaius, Diotrephes and Demetrius. Jot down a series of questions that will hopefully help us engage with the text and its message for us. This takes me more or less until 12.30. This morning an Ebenezer deacon has been doing door-to-door work with evangelist Tim Serjeant. I phoned to see how they got on and was encouraged that they had some promising conversations with people in the West Lavington area. Door-to-door evangelism is a long-term venture and we've been at it for over a year now. One or two people we've contacted have just started to attended services. After phone call, I do some paperwork before lunch.

It's my daughter's school sport's day today so I head off to watch her compete in various events. Running, skipping, discus, javelin, ball dribbling, long jump etc. She did pretty well, coming first or second several times. She may well have won in her group. Get home at 3.30pm. More paper work and some preparation for this evening. Pick up my son from an after-school cricket match. Rush evening meal - fish and chips, and then attend a briefing at Beccy's school regarding a residential school trip in July. Get back and do a bit more prep for Bible study and then head off at just gone 7pm.

Some helpful discussion in the Bible study with an emphasis on supporting mission and avoiding "Diotrephes syndrome" by cultivating the mind of Christ (Philippians 2). Good time of prayer. Home at 9.45pm. July's Evangelical Times has arrived including my article on The Spirit and the Word in preaching. If you don't get ET and would like to see it (as a Word doc.), drop me an e-mail.

A Commentary on The Letters to the Thessalonians by Gene L. Green

The Pillar New Testament Commentary,
The Letters to the Thessalonians,
by Gene L. Greene, Eerdmans/Apollos, 2002, 400pp.

I've just finished a series of discussional Bible studies on 1 & 2 Thessalonians, and this was the most helpful commentary by far. In a masterly introduction, Green brings the political, social and religious history of ancient Thessalonica to life. By Paul's day Thessalonica, a thriving port on the Via Egnatia trade route was doing very well out of the Roman Empire. But in the past, Macedonian kings had a habit of rebelling against Rome. This helps us to see why the city authorities were so alarmed at Paul apparently defying the decree of Cesar by preaching "another king, one Jesus" (Acts 17:6-8). The social structure of the city, with its system of patronage is also important for understanding some of the issues that Paul addressed in his letters. Wealthy patrons would support a network of clients in exchange for their political loyalty. Rather than working for a living, clients would simply sponge off their well heeled patrons. The apostle challenged this practice both in his teaching and by reminding the church of his example in 1 & 2 Thessalonians, (1 Thess. 2:1-12, 4:9-12, 2 Thess 3:6-14).

Green has a high respect for the authority of Scripture. He treats Paul's letters to the Thessalonians as the very Word of God. He gives a crisp and clear exposition of the text, making the meaning plain. The commentator is alive to the theological dimensions of Paul's letters. Without being unduly sermonic, he suggests ways in which the text applies to the church today. Interpretive difficulties are faced honestly and fairly with due consideration given to the views of other scholars. Green proposes fresh and to my mind convincing reading reading of the "man of sin" passage in 2 Thessalonians 2. (See an earlier post on this here). Leon Morris' Tyndale New Testament Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians (IVP) is succinct and helpful, but slightly dated. John Stott's Bible Speaks Today study on these letters (IVP) is typically well written and applicatory. I've been known to complain about the glut of commentaries on the market but Green makes a real contribution to our understanding of Paul's Thessalonian correspondence. If you are considering a series on the Thessalonian Epistles, get hold of this excellent commentary. You will find it an invaluable aid to accurate and telling exposition of this portion of God's living and enduring Word.

Bible study notes: Who "restrains" the man of sin?

6And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. 7For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. 8And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. 9The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders (2 Thessalonians 2:6-8, ESV).

In vs. 6 a principle or power restrains the man of sin, “what is restraining”. In vs. 7, the principle is described in personal terms “he who restrains”. This restraining factor or person has been variously interpreted. In his commentary, (The Bible Speaks Today, The Message of Thessalonians, IVP, 2004), John Stott runs through the options.

a) What restrains is the church and He who restrains is the Holy Spirit. But in vs. 7 he who restrains will be taken away or will withdraw himself. The Spirit has been promised to the church for ever (John 14:6).

b) What restrains is the preaching of the gospel and who restrains is Paul. But Paul nowhere puts himself at the centre of great eschatological events. Elsewhere in his teaching he does not suggest that his ministry was holding back the revelation of the man of sin and the onslaught of Satan. Indeed, Paul recognised that he could sometimes be restrained and hindered by the devil, 1 Thess 2:18. Besides Paul has long been removed from the scene of history and his being “taken away” vs. 7, did not usher in the revelation of the man of sin.

c) The restraining factor was the Roman state. This is Stott’s preferred option. Leon Morris (Tyndale New Testament Commentary, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, IVP, 1989) and Geerhardus Vos (The Pauline Eschatology, P&R, 1986 - chapter V. The Man of Sin) also lean in this direction. In Romans 13, Paul teaches that the function of the state is to restrain evil. But in the book of Revelation, the Roman state with its emperor worship and persecution of the saints is said to prefigure the man of sin - Rev. 17:7ff. Besides, the Roman Empire has fallen, yet once more in terms of vs. 7, the man of sin has still not been revealed.

So then, what or who exactly is “restraining" the man of sin? The problem with all the proposals listed above is that they assume that in this instance, the Greek word katechon means “restrain”. This suggests that some power or person is holding back the revelation of the man of sin. But the word has a broader range of meaning. Gene L. Green (The Pillar New Testament Commentary, The Letters to the Thessalonians, Apollos/Eerdmans, 2002) points out that the katechon could be translated, “that which seizes” or “one who possesses”. In some non-biblical sources the word is sometimes used of those who were seized or possessed by demonic powers. According to Green’s proposal, “that which seizes” does not entail restraining the man of sin. Rather “that which seizes” ensures that he will be revealed “in his own time” vs. 6. This demonic power was already at work, hence the false teaching that had infiltrated the Thessalonian church, vs. 7. (cf. 1 Tim 4:1) When the time is right, “he who seizes” will take possession of the man of sin and then withdraw from the scene to allow the lawless one to do his work. We find a similar transfer of malignant power between the beasts of Revelation 13, see especially vs. 12 & 15, cf. 17:12 & 13.

To sum up, we should not understand that Paul is talking about a power or person that is restraining the man of sin. Rather we should envisage a power or person that will seize the man of sin and take possession of him before taking himself out of the way to allow the lawless one to take centre stage.

The "man of sin" or the "lawless one" will be kind of parody of Christ. In John's terms, he is the antichrist. Note the way Paul describes his advent. He will be revealed – vs. 8 cf. Jesus revelation at the second advent, 1:7. He is described as "coming" vs. 9 (Greek, parousia), a term associated with the second coming of Christ, vs. 8 cf. 2:1. As the antichrist figure, he will set himself up against God and demand worship from all humanity, vs. 4. When the man of sin is revealed, the people of God will know him for what he is. Then the meaning of this rather difficult passage will no doubt become clear, at lest to those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life. As Vos wisely points out, “2 Thess. belongs among the many prophecies, whose best and final exegete will be eschatological fulfilment, and in regard to which it behoves the saints to exercise a peculiar eschatological patience.” (The Pauline Eschatology p. 133).