• Home Page

• Bible Reading Schedule

• Yesterday's Reading

• Tomorrow's Reading

• Spiritual Direction

• R.S. Thomas

• Mulholland

• My Examiner

• Videos

• Clients and Services

     Today, June 5, 1967, the Six-Day War began. Egypt had 80,000 troops and 900 tanks facing Israel. Jordan and Syria, with Soviet weapons, violently shelled Jerusalem and Israeli villages. Cairo radio announced: "The hour has come in which we shall destroy Israel." In a surprise move, Israeli air force destroyed 400 Egyptian planes, courageously drove Syria from the Golan Heights and captured all of Jerusalem. In a CBS-TV interview, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion stated: "In Israel, in order to be a realist you must believe in miracles."

Federer, B. (2003). American minute. St. Louis, MO.: Amerisearch, Inc.

The young do not need God,
and the old cannot find Him.
--- Mignon McLaughlin, The Second Neurotic's Notebook, 1966


For light I go directly to the Source of light,
not to any of the reflections.
--- Peace Pilgrim


... from here, there and everywhere

18 Casting lots puts an end to strife
and separates powerful disputants.

19 It is harder to win an offended brother
     than a strong city;
their fights are like the bars of a fortress.

Stern, D. H. (1998). Complete Jewish Bible-OE
: An English version of the Tanakh (OT) and
B'rit Hadashah (NT) (1st ed.). Clarksville, Md.: Jewish
New Testament Publications.

God's say-so

     He hath said … so that we may boldly say …
--- Hebrews 13:5–6.

     My say-so is to be built on God's say-so. God says—"I will never leave thee," then I can with good courage say—"The Lord is my helper, I will not fear"—I will not be haunted by apprehension. This does not mean that I will not be tempted to fear, but I will remember God's say-so. I will be full of courage, like a child 'bucking himself up' to reach the standard his father wants. Faith in many a one falters when the apprehensions come, they forget the meaning of God's say-so, forget to take a deep breath spiritually. The only way to get the dread taken out of us is to listen to God's say-so.

     What are you dreading? You are not a coward about it, you are going to face it, but there is a feeling of dread. When there is nothing and no one to help you, say—'But the Lord is my Helper, this second, in my present outlook.' Are you learning to say things after listening to God, or are you saying things and trying to make God's word fit in? Get hold of the Father's say-so, and then say with good courage—"I will not fear." It does not matter what evil or wrong may be in the way, He has said—"I will never leave thee."

     Frailty is another thing that gets in between God's say-so and ours. When we realize how feeble we are in facing difficulties, the difficulties become like giants, we become like grasshoppers, and God becomes a nonentity. Remember God's say-so—"I will in no wise fail you." Have we learned to sing after hearing God's key-note? Are we always possessed with the courage to say—"The Lord is my helper," or are we succumbing?

Chambers, O. (1993). My Utmost for His Highest

  There was a flower blowing
  and a hand plucked it.

  There was a stream flowing
  and a body smirched it.

  There was a pure mirror
  of water and a face came

  and looked in it. There was words
  and wars and treaties, and feet trampled

  the earth and the wheels
  seared it; and an explosion

  followed. There was dust
  and silence; and out of the dust

  a plant grew; and the dew formed
  upon it; and a stream seeped

  from the dew to construct
  a mirror, and the mirror was empty.

Thomas, R. S. Collected Poems 1945-1990 (Phoenix Press)

D'RASH

     In the Bible, references to the afterlife and the "World-to-Come" are few and far between. Even in Psalm 88, the section used by Rabbi Yoḥanan to prove his point, the psalmist cites "the Pit" and "Sheol" (the dark underworld) but does not describe it. This is in sharp contrast to the Talmud, where there are many references and complete descriptions of olam ha-ba, "the World-to-Come." The Rabbis foresaw a time in which the righteous would sit beneath God's throne, would dine luxuriously on the most sumptuous foods and would be privileged to study all the time.

     Nonetheless, the Rabbis also knew that the emphasis of the Torah and of Jewish life is this world. The World-to-Come was described in detail, in part, to reflect an ideal. Everything they envisioned for the next world was a goal, a vision for this world, the world of reality. Thus, they constructed a system of practices and rites that would reflect some of the ideals of the next world in this one. If in the next world, material possessions would not be a worry, then in this world, they should not be our ultimate concern. What activity would be more worthwhile than study of Torah day and night? Therefore, they strove to combine the concern for worldly possessions and our daily needs with daily study of Torah. Few could exempt themselves from the struggle for sustenance; none could be exempted from daily study.

     If the system worked to perfection, this world would become a reflection of the next world. If everyone observed the mitzvot, then strife and warfare would end. If nothing else, this world would be elevated and beautified. That the ideal could never be achieved was not a concern to the Rabbis. The ideal itself would become a paradigm for how a person should conduct everyday life. Ironically, if every person lived out all of these ideals—the mitzvot being a crystallization of God's vision of a perfect world—then there would no longer be a need for the mitzvot, for the next world would be achieved.

     This irony was not lost on the Rabbis. They knew that we often strive to leave an inheritance (in Hebrew, yerushah) after we die, something tangible and physical that our children and grandchildren can possess, when we should really be working to leave a heritage (morashah, from the same Hebrew root), something that enriches life before we die. If our Sages were to look at our world today, they might tell us: "You may think that you can gain immortality through stock futures, annuities, and insurance policies. These are ephemeral—important, but fleeting. If you want to leave something that will live on forever, turn this world into a reflection of the next. Be concerned with something even greater than yourselves, something more lasting than tomorrow."

     As we complete our study of Talmud texts, this remains our challenge.

Katz, M., & Schwartz, G. (1998). Swimming in the Sea of Talmud: Lessons for Everyday LIving . Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society.

     Your kingdom come. --- Luke 11:2

     The Bible is a book of hope. The model prayer;: A series of expositions on "The Lord's Prayer", It always speaks of a best that is still to be. We read of Eden, of a time when the world was free from pain and sadness, because humankind was free from sin. Their home was a garden, all nature served them, and God was their familiar friend. But we read on a chapter or two, and a change comes over the aspect of things. Eden disappears and has never been found since.

     People lost everything by sin except hope. That note of hope, struck even in the story of the tragedy of the Fall, is the keynote of the Bible. The Bible is a book of the future and the springtime and the dawn. "Your kingdom come" is a prayer for the good time coming, for the golden age, for the better Eden. For the earth's golden age will come when God is King. Jesus means that we are to pray that God may reign here on the earth, that people here may acknowledge him as King, that life here may be regulated by his commands. This is not a prayer that we may be taken out of earth into heaven, but it is a prayer that heaven may come down to earth, so that earth itself may become heavenly.

     In most people's minds the idea of a golden age is associated with the name of some king. The Israelites associated it with the name of David. For [the] British, romance gathers round the time of Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table. And as a matter of fact, the world's good time is inseparably connected with the coming of a King and the establishment of a kingdom. But the kingdom is no earthly royalty, and the King is no David or Arthur. The kingdom is the kingdom of God, and the name of the King is Jesus. When that kingdom is established, when that King is enthroned, a better Eden will be here than the Eden we have lost.

     But, isn't God King now? Isn't the world his? That is true! But that kingship rests on God's creatorship. God wants to be king in Jesus Christ, in virtue not of his power but of his love. He wants people to obey him not because they are afraid of him but because they love him. "Your kingdom come." Whose kingdom is it? It is our Father's kingdom—a kingdom of love! God wants to be King not because he is Creator, but because he is Father. It is for this kingdom we pray.

     "Your kingdom come," in my own heart, over all the world, and in every department of life.
--- J. D. Jones

Wallis, D. (2001). Take Heart: Daily Devotions with the Church's Great Preachers (27). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.

     The genealogy of 1 Chr 5:27–41 [6:1–15] is the most extensive of the priestly line found in the Old Testament and is effectively the latest as well. ... Johnson is probably correct in seeing the lists of Neh 11:11 and 1 Chr 9:11 as the oldest, or at least as based upon the oldest sources. Zadok stands at the center of each list and in apparent harmony with 2 Sam 8:17, is descended from Ahitub. While textual and chronological difficulties abound in this verse, the primary intent is surely to secure for the otherwise unknown Zadok a place within the Levitical line of Ahitub, whose grandson Abiathar was removed by Solomon from the priesthood (cf. 1 Sam 20–23; I Kgs 2:27). Hilkiah, it may be supposed, is to be identified with the priest of Josiah's reformation (2 Kgs 22; 2 Chr 34–35); Seraiah (Neh 11:11), named as chief priest at the time of the exile was put to death by the king of Babylon at Riblah (2 Kgs 25:18, 21). The parallel of 1 Chr 9:11 instead names Azariah here—a common name, especially among priests and Levites. These two names are very similar in sound and, at least in some scripts, in appearance. It is at least suggestive that they have been interchanged in other places as well: the Seraiah listed as accompanying Zerubbabel and Jeshua in Ezra 2:2 and 1 Esdr 5:8 is named Azariah in Neh 7:7; and the Azariah of Neh 10:3 [2] (which stands next to another Seraiah) seems to be identical with the Ezra of Neh 12:1. See also Ezra 7:1, where Ezra himself is the son of Seraiah, without intervening generations.

     Concerning these families of singers, the editorial framework seeks to establish the following points. (1) The Levitical musicians were appointed to their posts by David himself when the ark was brought up to Jerusalem (1 Chr 15–16). There is here no idea apparently, as in 1 Chr 16:37–42; 2 Chr 1:2–6, that the ark and the tent or tabernacle were separated, with families of priests and Levites divided between the two. Although not stated directly, it seems to be assumed that with the erection of the temple their duties were transferred there. (2) Although the musicians are considered Levites, as evidenced by their genealogies (and cf. especially [38] with respect to Heman), their status is distinct from that of other Levites [48], whose task is less definite, "all of the service of the tabernacle of the house of God" [48]. (3) The work of the Levites is also distinguished from that of "Aaron and his sons" [49], to whom has been given the prerogative of sacrifice and ministry within the Holy of Holies. Such a note is in harmony with other statements in the book which speak apologetically of specifically priestly duties (cf. 1 Chr 16:6; 2 Chr 29:16; 35:2) and may well be a later addition to the text. According to this understanding, the priests were established in their offices by Moses, the Levites owe at least their organization to David (cf. 1 Chr 15:2, 6; 16:4, 7, 37, 39; 2 Chr 8:14).

     Regarding verses [54–60] Cities of the Aaronides. V 39a [54a] is the writer's own introduction to the list (contrast Josh 21:1–3, where the emphasis is upon the divine character of the allotments). The nine cities of [55–59] are obviously to be viewed as the combined contribution of Simeon and Judah (cf. v 50 [65] and Josh 21:4, 9), though surprisingly this is not stated. Judah is mentioned only in connection with a reference to Hebron already considered secondary in Joshua by many [55], cf. Josh 21:11). Simeon is not mentioned at all, although Ashan (v 44 [59]) is in Josh 19:7 attributed to Simeon. This doubtless reflects the early demise of Simeon as an independent tribal unit.

     Apart from Beth-shemesh (accorded to Dan in Josh 19:41) and Libnah, the remaining seven cities all lie in the extreme south. ... Since this territory did not belong to the restored Judah of post-exilic days, it would be erroneous to find the reason for the retention of the list in its immediate relevance to the post-exilic situation. The reference to Benjamin as the source of the four remaining cities [60]) has been retained from Josh 21:17, although in a very prosaic manner. If the writer were the Chronicler himself, this failure to point more specifically to Judah and Benjamin as the source of the cities given to the Aaronide priests would seem difficult to justify, given this opportunity to bring together two themes about which he felt so strongly.

     [71–76] Cities of the Gershomites. Two cities of the remaining half-tribe of (E) Manasseh, together with four each from Issachar and Asher and three from Naphtali, make up the Gershomites' allotment. ... If the text is correct as we have reconstructed it, each tribe but Naphtali would have contributed four cities, with Naphtali's three counterbalanced by the nine of Judah and Simeon to reach the ideal total of forty-eight.

     For the Israelite, a review of the genealogies was a review of sacred history itself. There were so many memories, captured there by familiar names.

     The review of history was also a reminder to the Israelite of his heritage. As a descendant of Abraham, he was one of that special line chosen to be the focus of God's working in the world.

     But for us, as we look back over Old Testament history as it is reflected in these names, there is another lesson as well. Our journey through Bible history reminds us that no changes in external conditions brought men to the condition of blessedness and dominion that God intends for man. Yet, human beings still struggle to find release and fulfillment without God, denying God's judgment that it is sin that has brought death, and that death still holds man and society in its unbreakable grip.

     Looking ahead, in future studies we'll trace God's continuing revelation of His own solution to each individual's—and society's—need. We'll see in the continuing flow of history even more evidence that nothing apart from God's personal action in Christ can offer meaningful hope.

     There is a personal message in this flow of history. The death we see expressed in history and in society grips you and me as well as others. You and I must turn from our own efforts and reject all the tempting solutions the world offers. We must seek God's intervention in our own lives. As the New Testament phrases God's message to the individual, "You were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked" (Eph. 2:1–2, NASB).

     The passage, Ephesians 2, goes on to explain. "But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ" (vv. 4–5, NASB).

     In the person of Jesus Christ, promised in the Old Testament and revealed in the New, God has acted to bring you and me the possibility of life, and to call us from the experience of sin's death to a new and abundant life in Jesus.

     If we have heard the message of Bible history, our eyes have been turned away from ourselves and our own efforts to God. If we have heard the message of Bible history, we have recognized the reality of death, spiritual and physical. If we have heard the message of Bible history, we can begin to realize that our one and only hope is in God, our Creator and the Saviour of us all.

Richards, L., & Richards, L. O. (1987). The Teacher's Commentary (323). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

     … Chronicles is very much concerned with Israel's religion and religious institutions as vehicles by which her mediatorial role among the nations can be articulated. The critical ministry of the priests and Levites as part of the cultic apparatus is evident from the beginning of the chronicler's work where he devoted a long chapter (1 Chron. 6) to this matter.

     To establish first the legitimacy of the Zadokite priesthood of his own contemporaries, the chronicler traced its genealogy back through Zadok, Eleazar, and Aaron to Levi himself (1 Chron 6:1–15). He ended the list with Jehozadak, the priest who accompanied the exiles into Babylon and who was also the direct ancestor of Joshua, the high priest of postexilic times (Zech. 6:11). The Exile, then, as traumatic as it was, did not bring the ancient Aaronic priesthood to an end.

     The next section of the genealogy (1 Chron. 6:16–30) commences again with Levi but it traces the nonpriestly descendants, that is, the Levites. Their tasks were multifaceted but primarily consisted of assisting the priests in their mediatorial work. Specifically they were in charge of music in the Tabernacle and Temple (vv. 31–48) and, except for actually making offerings on the altars (vv. 48–53), occupied themselves with worship at the house of the Lord. To make themselves accessible to the whole population of Israel, the Levites settled in towns and villages strategically located throughout the land (vv. 54–81). Holy place and holy person are thus juxtaposed once more.

     When David became king and made preparation for the centralization of worship at Jerusalem, he ordered the priests and Levites to consecrate themselves to the assignment of moving the Ark into Jerusalem, a task that must explicitly follow Mosaic regulation (cf. 1 Chron. 15:11–15; Ex. 25:14). He then appointed the Levitical singers according to their orders (1 Chron. 15:16–24), defining their ministry as one of making petition, giving thanks, and praising the Lord (16:4–6). On the eve of temple building, David again organized the Levites to oversee the work of the Temple (23:4), to serve as officials and judges (v. 4), to be gatekeepers (v. 5), and to praise the Lord in music (v. 5). In sum, "the duty of the Levites was to help Aaron's descendants in the service of the temple of the Lord" (23:28).

     The priests and Levites obviously played an important part in the cultic life of Israel, serving as they did, within the context of the Sinaitic Covenant, as mediators between the vassal nation and its Great King. What must be remembered, however, is that this ministry was restricted to that covenant and to that nation, though lessons in holiness and intercession of eternal application may be seen in it.

     This is not the case with the second kind of holy person, the king, as he is revealed in Chronicles in his twin roles as priest and son of God. In fact, Chronicles makes an unusual contribution to biblical theology in precisely these concepts. As this study has repeatedly argued, biblical theology most clearly and consistently finds integration around the theme of sovereignty, that of Yahweh over all His creation and that of man, His vice-regent, over all things delegated to him. That derived dominion, though impaired by the Fall, is still in force and will find unimpeded perfection in the ages to come.

     In the meantime, in human history Yahweh elected a nation, Israel, to mediate His saving purposes to the world and also to provide a model of sovereignty on the earth. Thus Abraham was called and received a promise that through his descent all the earth would be blessed. A corollary promise was that he would sire kings, a promise narrowed in the blessing of Jacob to a ruler who would come from the tribe of Judah. Picking up on this line of expectation, the chronicler made the direct connection between Adam and Abraham and then between Abraham and David, his purpose being to show that David and his royal house were the physical and historical expression of the dominion mandate given to Adam and channeled through Abraham and his seed. The king of Israel was therefore more than a mere political figure; he was the messianic ruler who stood as second Adam in dominion over all things but who, because he was human, stood also as a type of anticipation of the sinless One who would climax and complete the line of David. Toward an Old Testament Theology

     As such a king, then, David was an intercessor, a priest, but one not limited to Israel and the Aaronic line. He was, in fact, of the line of Melchizedek, priest of El Elyon, who, the author of Hebrews emphasizes, was "without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life," one who "like the Son of God … remains a priest forever" (Heb. 7:3). Covenant and Creation: A Theology of Old Testament Covenants (See all Religion & Spirituality Books) This was the understanding of David himself for, referring to himself, he wrote, "The Lord has sworn and will not change His mind: 'You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek' " (Ps. 110:4).

     This extravagant claim finds abundant confirmation and illustration in the accounts of David's reign, particularly in Chronicles. The first attestation appears in connection with the transfer of the Ark into Jerusalem from Kiriath-jearim. Leading the procession is David himself, "clothed in a robe of fine linen, as were all the Levites who were carrying the ark" (1 Chron. 15:27). In fact, above that he wore the linen ephod, a garment reserved to the Aaronic high priest alone (v. 27). Since he was not of Levi but Judah, David could not have worn the habiliments of the Levitical priesthood. Thus his was a priesthood of a different kind (cf. Heb. 7:11–17). Ancient Israel - 2 vols, Vol 1 - Social Institutions, vol 2 - Religious Institutions

     Once David had placed the Ark in the Zion Tabernacle, he sacrificed burnt offerings and peace offerings, rites reserved to the priesthood, and he bestowed on the people a priestly blessing (1 Chron. 16:1–2). Again, only as a priest could even the king qualify to discharge these functions.

     That this office of royal priest was transmissible by David is evident in the intercessory ministry of Solomon, his son. After he completed the Temple and it was invested with the glorious presence of the Lord, Solomon offered burnt offerings and fellowship offerings (2 Chron. 7:7). These were not just offerings sanctioned by him or offered on his behalf, but as his leadership of the religious convocation shows (5:2–7:10) Solomon was himself participating and was doing so in a priestly capacity.

     Negative support for the royal priesthood concept appears in the story of Uzziah (2 Chron 26:16–20). Having become powerful, he arrogated to himself priestly prerogatives that lay exclusively in the domain of the Aaronic priests and entered the Temple to burn incense. While in the act he was confronted by the high priest Azariah who chided him for usurping ministry reserved for the Levitical priesthood. The Books of the Chronicles "It is not right for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the Lord," Azariah warned. "That is for the priests, the descendants of Aaron, who have been consecrated to burn incense." The identification of the priests as the descendants of Aaron presupposes another order of priests, that to which Uzziah himself belonged. His sin was not in functioning as a priest but rather in intruding into the domain of the priests of Israel.

     Even more remarkable is the chronicler's description of David and his dynasty as sons of God. This bold metaphor is in keeping with the connection between David and Melchizedek as established in Psalm 110, and in fact that psalm of David states explicitly, "The Lord says to my Lord [i.e., David]: 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet' " (Ps. 110:1).

     When this elevated language is viewed in light of another psalm of David (Psalm 2) it is most evident that the priestly king is none other than the Son of God. Toward an Old Testament Theology The relevant lines read, "He said to me, 'You are my son, Today I have become your father. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession' " (Ps. 2:7b–8).

     This obviously refers to adoptive sonship, as most scholars agree, but it suits most admirably the One who someday would be the Son of God in human flesh, David's greatest scion. David himself is never described as the son of God in the Old Testament narrative texts, but Solomon is in Chronicles. In discussing with his son the plans for the Temple, David said to Solomon, speaking for the Lord, "He [Solomon] will be my son, and I will be his father" (1Chron. 22:10). The same statement appears in 1 Chronicles 28:6.

     Finally, there may be a hint of divine sonship in the reaction of the people of Israel to David on the occasion of his presentation to them of Solomon to be his successor. The record states that they praised the Lord God of their fathers and then "bowed low and fell prostrate before the Lord and the king" (l Chron 29:20). This unusual linking of the Lord and the king as subjects of homage suggests more than ordinary kinship between them.

     It has already been proposed that the theology of Chronicles focuses on the Davidic monarchy as a theocratic expression of God's sovereign elective and redemptive purposes for His people and ultimately for all nations. This initial programmatic thesis finds abundant confirmation in the role of David and the Davidic dynasty as both priest and son of God. It is certainly of interest that Jesus Christ, offspring and heir of David, is revealed also as royal priest and Son of God (Heb. 5:1–10).

Zuck, R. B. (1991). A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament