The Rabbi

He came again, love, compassion, forgiveness; give them another opportunity. I needed to be reminded that these were yhwh’s people; he committed himself to them, he would not give them up without trying one more time to get them to listen.

I called Baruch, I spoke , he wrote. Together we composed what had been passionate speeches, vivid experiences, personal dialogues into mere words. I feel betrayed, repetition turns ownership into acting. Then I read what Baruch had written—I was moved. G-d’s or mine, together our words read powerfully. Perhaps this scroll is what they need, something they could mull over.

Under house arrest, I could not attend the festival to read to the pilgrims from my scroll, so I sent Baruch. he had quite an audience, several of whom relayed the essence of my scroll to the elders. They in turn sent for Baruch who gave them a private reading. Hearing it all at once intimidates so much gloom and doom, repeated yet unheeded calls fro repentance. They feared—I believe for themselves—on account of the words, for Baruch and myself—on account of what the king would do to us. We were told to hide.

The scroll was delivered by one of these, Jehudi, to the king for his hearing. What represented years of my work, what I now feel share yhwh’s authorship Jehoiakim, page by page, carelessly but deliberately cut and threw into the heater for warmth. This reckless arrogance will cost min a decent funeral. All that I warned that might be, shall be—a picture, I fear will be a self portrait. A judgment that knows no selection, the righteous die as the wicked. Jehoiakim professes a relationship his behavior belies—we his people will pay as G-d’s patience with this path of obedience ends.

Then the silent voice returns; write again.
Words spoken end with memory.
That written last as long as reading
I write to be heard
I write so shoes who remain
would understand why
I write to imagine what could be
on the other side

Civilizing the Nomad—G-d uses and abuses as he illustrates by the lives of some a message to others. I, Jeremiah, have learned it’s better to be with G-d than against him, but I frequently consider what it would be like without him. He sent me to offer wine to the members of the house of Rechab. More than several came in response to my invitation to meet with me in the temple, but after pleasant introductions, I offered wine as a gesture of welcome—to a man they refused.

This strange response, they informed me relates to a vow made by one Jonadab their ancestor of renown. Upon viewing the degradation of city life, he imposed an oath on his descendants that they should neither drink wine, city dwell, nor even farm but rather live a simple, nomadic life—tending the herd, pitching the tent. According to this vow, all Jonadab’s family lives.

Their worship of yhwh parallels; civilization—growth in economy, arts, literature, and architecture—opens avenues for alternatives to the agrarian, pastoral worship of the fathers, but the Rechabites chose the old ways, only a festival would draw them to the city.

God uses the fidelity of these Rechabites to illustrate to his people their lack of obedience. Why had Judah not keep my instruction? why to the insistent call of my prophets did my people not, as the Rechabites, respond in obedience?

I, Jeremiah, continue my conversation with the Rechabites, why are you now in the city? Nebuchadnezzar drove us here, pastoral Judah no longer exists. For our lives we fled to what we consider contaminating; was there another choice?

My G-d, my G-d why have you brought such innocent people into this maelstrom of polluted, moral, and spiritual corruption—a place fated to fall heinously to Babylonian sword? My anguish is denied an audience as he violently overwhelms me, using my mouth to offer consolation to the anxious Rechabites.

Your faithful obedience opens preservation’s door; a Rechabite shall always stand before me in service. The Rechabits appreciate this Joban blessing—I, Jeremiah, consider the fate of their women and children after they had departed to their canvas neighborhood. I question G-d concerning their fate—Nebuchadnezzar’s warriors will slice and rape those faithful to yhwh as well as the syncretizers and agnostics. Survival of a family matter little when death for most soon approaches. Why must the righteous suffer with and on account of the wicked?

A nice pair to review for contrast between two eminent christian scholars.

(Ehrman in his dedication cleverly defines the word "friend": someone knowing the intimate details of my life still deigns to spend long evenings with me drinking fine scotch, smoking fine cigars, and talking about life, family, friends, work. love, virtues, vice,and desires. Does it get any better than that? I of course can't totally agree but with slight changes, isn't that what friends are for?)

Bart Ehrman teaches at UNC specializing in Jesus and the early church. In his book he briefly describes his spiritual journey moving right to left in both education and belief to his present point; he's agnostic. A well written, and if one may say, easy to read, examination on what the bible has to say about man’s suffering in relation with his god. Ehrman walks through the bible chronologically/theologically touching on the development of theodicy over time. He observes four phases of doctrinal expansion; the initial of which comes out of Deuteronomy and the Prophets: man suffers because of disobedience; God judges Israel’s sin when they violate his commandments. Ehrman next projects this frequently observed principle universally concluding one cannot possibly believe that every disaster, suicide bombing, or war casualty is the result of God’s judgment on account of disobedience. This projection, a better technical term would be extrapolation (extending outside of the given data), moves beyond the words of Israel’s prophets, their audience was limited to say th least. But then Ehrman also speculates that even in ancient Israel, not everyone who died in the events leading up to exile was deserving of that punishment. I ponder this myself in my Jeremiah persona; why do the righteous die along with the wicked?

His next observes that sometimes those good suffer because of the behavior of the wicked toward them. He entitles this the free will interpretation; God has given to man the right to make decisions, some of which are evil which then results in persecution, suffering of the innocent. Ehrman then asks, here again I am with him, why doesn’t God do something about such grief?

He continues moving into the NT with an overview of substitutionary atonement. As noted in Isaiah’s suffering servant passage and fleshed out in the death of Jesus, someone died so that others may live. He goes as far as to deny hell, asking a simple question; if God does not act to intervene now, why will he in the future, sort it all out?
The third phase in the bible’s working out the theodicy question, Ehrman calls redemptive suffering; God bring good out of evil, Joseph being a case. The cross the ultimate example.

The final, a nice turn of word here, is apocalyptic. Over time explanations of Israel’s suffering grew lame with the continuing of punishment inflicted by successive foreign rulers, Persia, Greece, Rome. Was all that suffering the direct result of behavior? Were there none who followed God close enough to avoid persecution? Coming out of Daniel, perhaps I should read that book sometime, these theologians saw a conflict taking on a spiritual component not previously considered. Forces of evil run rampart in the world. Man suffers. Not until the end would God terminate this persecution ending man’s suffering.

In the end, Ehrman follows his understanding of the writer of Ecclesiastes; stuff happens, evil occurs, men, women, children die. He concludes, the God of the bible cannot exist as portrayed, because of the lack of divine intervention in individual and mass suffering. He encourages a response, if one sees suffering do something about it.
As I read I asked myself, if I could wind up where he is?

NT Wright (notes to date natural evil—tsunami and moral evil—holocaust
How God has, is, and will deal with evil
many still believe in the early 20th century idea of progression in society, our advanced society, hardly
reaction: most ignore evil unless it personally effects them
how to celebrate the goodness of God while understanding the reality of evil?
a reading of OT reveals nations are evil, but then so is Israel, as a matter of fact so is all of creation
God’s justice is a saving, healing, restorative justice, putting it all back together again, fulfilling his promise to Abraham)

Upon opening this HUCA I was pleasantly surprised to find Kulp's work, since we are working in Deuteronomy 22 in SS at church. Not that in that setting am I ever going to prob the depths as the rabbis.

Deuteronomy 22 concerns the immediate aftermath of the wedding night: (1) was she a virgin or did she lie about it? and (2) did he want to keep her or not?

Kulp follows the rabbinic arguments over time initially noting two two rabbinic directions: (1) post betrothal adultery--which was then managed as an adultery case, and (2) that a woman came to marriage not a virgin but also not having committed post betrothal adultery: in this case, if proven guilty she suffered not the penalty of death but loss of her ketubbah, a mere financial loss upon being divorced. In specific detail the rabbis argued whether a husband could physically prove that his bride was not a virgin, of course after the fact. Concluding that it would be difficult at best.

A fascinating read, for those so interested. Given some time I would have to plot out the arguments in a time related flow diagram to fully appreciate the nuanced statements offered. Some day perhaps.

Hamilton writes a manual for future biographers which reads like a romance or adventure novel. I could not put his 346 pgs down reading through each progressive chapter laced with carefully chosen examples from biographies that worked and several that didn't.

After locating biography between history and novel, he sets forth the biographers method; the time commitment challenges, all that research, writing, painful editing (by others hurts the most), and then waiting for the reviews--5 to 10 years easily passes. He distinguishes biographies by their focus not on the major events, accomplishments of a significant player's life, but the tragedies, loves, feelings, and relationships that define anyone as an individual. How one negotiates life's harsh, daily demands describes who they are, not those highly visible events when one occupies center stage.

Hamilton next arranges chapters to represent life stages of the subject chosen to biograph. I almost visualized a biographee as her/his life unfolded in Hamilton's excursion through the seven stages of life, the compilation of which mature the subject for his readers.

Since buried in the recesses of my mine, I envision that someday I will write an (auto)biography of Jeremiah, Hamilton's work impressed the difficulties and rewards of such an endeavor. A good read for an aspiring writer.