Author Archives: Neil

2 Kings 18 King Hezekiah and Sennacherib’s Threat to Jerusalem

King Hezekiah on a 17th century painting by unknown artist in the choir of *Sankta Maria kyrka* in Åhus, Sweden.

2 Kings 18: 1-8

¹ In the third year of King Hoshea son of Elah of Israel, Hezekiah son of King Ahaz of Judah began to reign. ² He was twenty-five years old when he began to reign; he reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Abi daughter of Zechariah. ³ He did what was right in the sight of the LORD, just as his ancestor David had done. ⁴ He removed the high places, broke down the pillars, and cut down the sacred pole. He broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had made offerings to it; it was called Nehushtan. ⁵ He relied on the LORD, the God of Israel, so that there was no one like him among all the kings of Judah after him or among those who were before him. ⁶ For he held fast to the LORD; he did not depart from following him but kept the commandments that the LORD had commanded Moses. ⁷ The LORD was with him; wherever he went, he prospered. He rebelled against the king of Assyria and would not serve him. ⁸ He attacked the Philistines as far as Gaza and its territory, from watchtower to fortified city.

With the northern kingdom of Samaria (Israel) scattered by the Assyrians the remainder of the book of kings focuses on the kings in Jerusalem. Ultimately over the final eight chapters of 2 Kings it will focus on the two paradigmatically good kings, Hezekiah (chapters 18-20) and Josiah (chapters 22-23), in contrast to the kings ‘who do evil in the sight of the LORD. Hezekiah and Josiah are the only kings who are compared to their father David in faithfulness, and Hezekiah ‘held fast’ to the LORD in contrast to Solomon who in his later years ‘held fast’[1] to his foreign wives. (1 Kings 11:2) Hezekiah is viewed as a king who is faithful to God and whose faithfulness ensures that Jerusalem does not suffer the same fate as Samaria. 2 Chronicles 29-32 and Isaiah 36-39 also relate the events of Hezekiah’s reign in a very positive light.

The narrators of 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles view the faithfulness of Hezekiah in his consolidation of worship in the temple in Jerusalem and the elimination of the long-established high places and sacred poles. The high places have failed to be eliminated by previous kings and to the narrator of 2 Kings that has provided a qualification of the faithfulness of any previous king, but now Hezekiah is viewed as an example of the type of king that the LORD expects. Even Nehushtan[2], the bronze serpent on a pole mentioned in Numbers 21, is destroyed to prevent the misuse of this object from the time of Moses. The faithfulness of Hezekiah is also rewarded with success as he both rebels against Assyria and expands his territory into the land of the Philistines. We will explore the impact of this rebellion against Assyria at the end of chapter eighteen and through chapter nineteen, but this introduction to the reign of Hezekiah’s twenty-nine year reign ends on a high note.

2 Kings 18: 9-12

⁹ In the fourth year of King Hezekiah, which was the seventh year of King Hoshea son of Elah of Israel, King Shalmaneser of Assyria came up against Samaria, besieged it, ¹⁰ and at the end of three years took it. In the sixth year of Hezekiah, which was the ninth year of King Hoshea of Israel, Samaria was taken. ¹¹ The king of Assyria carried the Israelites away to Assyria and settled them in Halah, on the Habor, the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes, ¹² because they did not obey the voice of the LORD their God but transgressed his covenant—all that Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded; they neither listened nor obeyed.

This brief reminder of the Assyrian conquest of Samaria places the disaster of the northern kingdom in its place between the fourth and sixth year of Hezekiah. Most commentaries will note a struggle with the chronology here and in the following section since Samaria is destroyed in 722/721 BCE and in the following section Sennacherib (705-681 BCE) attacks in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah (believed to be 701 BCE). Ultimately this is a relatively minor instance of numbers not aligning and I do not want to detract from the basic contrast between the kings of the Israelites in the north who did not obey the voice of the LORD their God and Hezekiah who was faithful.

2 Kings 18:13-37

¹³ In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, King Sennacherib of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and captured them. ¹⁴ King Hezekiah of Judah sent to the king of Assyria at Lachish, saying, “I have done wrong; withdraw from me; whatever you impose on me I will bear.” The king of Assyria demanded of King Hezekiah of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. ¹⁵ Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the house of the Lord and in the treasuries of the king’s house. ¹⁶ At that time Hezekiah stripped the gold from the doors of the temple of the Lord and from the doorposts that King Hezekiah of Judah had overlaid and gave it to the king of Assyria. ¹⁷ The king of Assyria sent the Tartan, the Rabsaris, and the Rabshakeh with a great army from Lachish to King Hezekiah at Jerusalem. They went up and came to Jerusalem. When they arrived, they came and stood by the conduit of the upper pool, which is on the highway to the fuller’s field. ¹⁸ When they called for the king, there came out to them Eliakim son of Hilkiah, who was in charge of the palace, and Shebnah the secretary, and Joah son of Asaph, the recorder.
¹⁹ The Rabshakeh said to them, “Say to Hezekiah: Thus says the great king, the king of Assyria: On what do you base this reliance of yours? ²⁰ Do you think that mere words are strategy and power for war? On whom do you now rely, that you have rebelled against me? ²¹ See, you are relying now on Egypt, that broken reed of a staff, which will pierce the hand of anyone who leans on it. Such is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all who rely on him. ²² But if you say to me, ‘We rely on the Lord our God,’ is it not he whose high places and altars Hezekiah has removed, saying to Judah and to Jerusalem, ‘You shall worship before this altar in Jerusalem’? ²³ Come now, make a wager with my master the king of Assyria: I will give you two thousand horses, if you are able on your part to set riders on them. ²⁴ How then can you repulse a single captain among the least of my master’s servants when you rely on Egypt for chariots and for horsemen? ²⁵ Moreover, is it without the LORD that I have come up against this place to destroy it? The LORD said to me, ‘Go up against this land, and destroy it.’ ”
²⁶ Then Eliakim son of Hilkiah, Shebnah, and Joah said to the Rabshakeh, “Please speak to your servants in the Aramaic language, for we understand it; do not speak to us in the language of Judah within the hearing of the people who are on the wall.” ²⁷ But the Rabshakeh said to them, “Has my master sent me to speak these words to your master and to you and not to the people sitting on the wall, who are doomed with you to eat their own dung and to drink their own urine?”
²⁸ Then the Rabshakeh stood and called out in a loud voice in the language of Judah, “Hear the word of the great king, the king of Assyria: ²⁹ Thus says the king: Do not let Hezekiah deceive you, for he will not be able to deliver you out of my hand. ³⁰ Do not let Hezekiah make you rely on the LORD by saying, ‘The LORD will surely deliver us, and this city will not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria.’ ³¹ Do not listen to Hezekiah, for thus says the king of Assyria: Make your peace with me and come out to me; then every one of you will eat from your own vine and your own fig tree and drink water from your own cistern, ³² until I come and take you away to a land like your own land, a land of grain and wine, a land of bread and vineyards, a land of olive oil and honey, that you may live and not die. Do not listen to Hezekiah when he misleads you by saying, ‘The LORD will deliver us.’ ³³ Has any of the gods of the nations ever delivered its land out of the hand of the king of Assyria? ³⁴ Where are the gods of Hamath and Arpad? Where are the gods of Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivvah? Have they delivered Samaria out of my hand? ³⁵ Who among all the gods of the countries have delivered their countries out of my hand, that the LORD should deliver Jerusalem out of my hand?”
³⁶ But the people were silent and answered him not a word, for the king’s command was, “Do not answer him.” ³⁷ Then Eliakim son of Hilkiah, who was in charge of the palace, and Shebna the secretary, and Joah son of Asaph, the recorder, came to Hezekiah with their clothes torn and told him the words of the Rabshakeh.

This critical moment in the story of Zion is related here and in Isaiah 36. For both 2 Kings and Isaiah the implication of this story is clear, that God protected the city. The faithfulness of the people under Hezekiah leads God to intervene on behalf of the city and the people and Jerusalem, unlike Samaria, will be spared. In a David and Goliath type of moment the small kingdom of Judah resists the seemingly irresistible empire of Assyria.

Alex Israel gives a good summary of the events preceding Assyria’s actions against King Hezekiah and Jerusalem:

The death of an emperor always presented an opportunity for revolt, but the circumstances of Sargon’s death, widely seen as a bad omen for Assyria, exacerbated the unrest. Rebellion broke out at both extremities of the sprawling empire. East of Assyria, in Babylonia, Merodach-baladan (known in Kings as Berodach-baladan) crowned himself as ruler. In the West, Judah allied itself with Philistia and Egypt in rejecting Assyrian power. Since Kings records that Berodach visited Hezekiah in Jerusalem (II Kings 20: 12-13), it is probable that the resistance efforts in the East and the West were coordinated. Israel 289

During the roughly two decades since the destruction of Samaria we know that Hezekiah has been active both in attempting to strengthen the defenses of Jerusalem and has ensured that the city has an adequate water supply by cutting tunnels to carry the waters of the Gihon spring to the Siloam Pool. (Cogan, 1988, p. 221) The Philistine cities Hezekiah attacked in verse eight may have been those loyal to Assyria to secure this Philistine-Egyptian-Judah alliance on the western side of Assyria. Yet, when Assyria under Sennacherib attempts to regain control of the portions of its empire in rebellion it overwhelms the fortified cities of Judah and stands at the gates of Jerusalem where this challenge is issued.

King Hezekiah does attempt to appease the Assyrian king by submitting to a tribute of three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold[3] and Hezekiah empties the treasuries and strips the gold from the temple doorposts, yet the empire is not appeased and the troops of Assyria continue from the conquered city of Lachish to Jerusalem.

The Tartan, the Rabsaris, and the Rabshakeh are three officials of Sennacherib. Tartan is the viceroy who had the authority to act on behalf of Sennacherib, Rabsaris is literally the “chief eunuch”, and Rabshakeh is the “chief cupbearer.” Rabshakeh is the speaker for the emissaries of Sennacherib to the representatives of King Hezekiah, Eliakim the steward of the palace, Shebnah the secretary and Joah the recorder. Rabshakeh speaks both to these representatives but also to the population watching from the walls to weaken the resolve of the defenders and to have people defect from Hezekiah. At the heart of Rabshakeh’s challenge is on what the people and Hezekiah can trust.[4]

Rabshakeh indicates that Egypt is not trustworthy and that any trust placed in their action to deliver will only wound the one who hoped in this weak and unreliable ally. Then Rabshakeh indicates that the people should not trust in the LORD since, in Rabshakeh’s interpretation, the people have at Hezekiah’s insistence removed the very sites that honored the LORD. Then the Rab-shakeh indicates that the presence of the Assyrian army is because the LORD has sent it, an argument that is echoed in Isaiah 10: 5-11. Finally, the people should not trust in Hezekiah to deliver them or when Hezekiah says to ‘trust in the LORD.’ Despite the efforts of Hezekiah to fortify the city, the Rab-shakeh mocks his ineffectual army which could not field two thousand mounted men if Assyria provided the horses. Rabshakeh also states that the gods of the other nations have not prevented Assyria from conquering them, and even if the LORD had not sent Assyria the God of Israel is powerless to prevent the destruction that the army of Assyria portends.

This crisis for the narrator of 2 Kings and Isaiah is more than a military and humanitarian crisis, it is a crisis of trust. Is the God of Israel trustworthy and is Hezekiah, God’s faithful king, trustworthy or does might make right. Can the emissaries of Sennacherib mock God and Jerusalem with impunity or will God intervene on their behalf. The actions of King Hezekiah and the Prophet Isaiah in the following chapter will give a model of faithfulness for future generations and God’s response will prove God’s trustworthiness.

[1] In both cases the Hebrew word dabaq is used for these kings holding fast to either God or their foreign wives.

[2] Nehustan name suggests both the material nehoset, “bronze” and the image nahas, “serpent. (Cogan, 1988, p. 217)

[3] Assyrian records indicate eight hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. (Cogan, 1988, p. 229)

[4] The Hebrew batahta (trust) and derivative forms which are translated security/reliance permeate Rab-shakeh’s speech.

Reflection of Of Boys and Men by Richard V. Reeves

Leave a reply

Reflections on Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male is Struggling. Why it Matters, and What to do about It. By Richard V. Reeves.

This is a part of a selection of readings I gathered to reflect on what a healthy approach to masculine identity would look like. I navigated my own journey into a version of manhood in my late teens and early twenties successfully, but now in middle age I see a lot of young men struggling to navigate this journey and for a variety of reasons failing to launch into life. I come to this with humility and curiosity seeking those who may be able to articulate more clearly the journeys that may lead young men to discover a fulfilling life of work and relationships and to help those moving into the space of elders to support and guide them in this journey.

Richard Reeves book Of Boys and Men was the first book that helped make sense of several intuitions I had about the way life had changed for men in relationships, in work, and in school. I initially listened to an audio version of the book in 2024 and then read and marked up a physical copy in 2025. One of the things I appreciate about Richard Reeves approach is that he continually reminds the reader that empathy is not a zero-sum game. We can be concerned about advancing equality for women and still acknowledge and address the ways men are struggling in education, relationships and the workforce and the fundamental changes in their roles in a relatively short period of time. Richard Reeves is also a person who thinks about policy and so the book not only identifies the struggles that many men face but also provides ideas for consideration in addressing the struggles.

In education at all levels men have fallen significantly behind women. Women are more likely to perform well in middle and high school, attend and graduate college, and go onto graduate level education. Part of the struggle that boys and men struggle with in education is biological. As Richard Reeves states:

Boys’ brains develop more slowly, especially during the most critical years of secondary education. When almost one in four boys (23%) is categorized as having a “developmental disability,” it is fair to wonder if it is educational institutions, rather than boys, that are not functioning properly. (8)

The lack of male educators in the school system impacts the ability of boys to learn, but it also leads to the pathologizing of normal adolescent behavior. Richard Reeves also suggests starting boys a year later in the educational progression to assist with the two to three year gap in development of key executive functions in brain activity between girls and boys, but also advocates for more male teachers, coaches, and other leadership roles within the educational system.

The workforce has fundamentally changed in recent generations and many of the jobs lost were traditionally masculine jobs that required physical strength, which has now been replaced by automation. Reeves notes that the significant effort to encourage women to be educated and work in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields but the fastest growing job needs are in what Reeves labels as HEAL jobs: Healthcare, Education, Administration, and Literacy. As mentioned above he advocates for programs to encourage and fund men being trained in these HEAL jobs and notes the benefits that having men in these jobs would have for both men and women.

One of the other things I appreciated about Reeve’s attempt at balance was his willingness to criticize both the political left and right in their approach to the issue. The political right at least acknowledges that there is a problem, but their solution is to try to steer the world back to an earlier time when women were less involved in the workforce, college, and life outside the home. The political left has pathologized the problem as ‘toxic masculinity,’ viewed male problems as individual failings, been unwilling to acknowledge any biological basis for sex differences, and has been convinced that inequality can only run one way. An example of viewing the problem as individual failings would look like:

If men are depressed, it is because they won’t express their feelings. If they get sick, it is because they won’t go to the doctor. If they fail at school, it is because they lack commitment. If they die early, it is because they drink and smoke too much and eat the wrong things. For those on the political Left, then, victim-blaming is permitted when it comes to men. (109)

He also begins to reframe some of the traits that have been labelled ‘toxic’ in a more positive light. For example, the male psychology is more wired for risk, but it is also far more likely to take risks to save or protect others. He also highlights the erosion of the core institutions of work, family, and religion which guided common patterns of behavior for men and women.

I appreciate that Richard Reeves has not only provided a thoughtful approach to the problems that boys and men face but also continues to research and advocate for solutions. His work is one that several other authors are beginning to build upon and Of Boys and Men was one of the first books that attempted a balanced approach to the issues facing men. Of Boys and Men helped give me both a language to describe some of what I was seeing as well as prompting me to dig deeper and to want to know more. I found it helpful as we try to imagine a hopeful future for both men and women.

2 Kings 17 The End of Samaria

Leave a reply

A neo-Assyrian relief of Assyrians in a procession, Photo by Denis Bourez in the Brittish Museum, London. Shared under CC 2.0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyria#/media/File:Denis_Bourez_-_British_Museum,_London_(8748213226).jpg

2 Kings 17: 1-6 King Hoshea the Last King in Samaria and the End of the Northern Kingdom of Israel

¹ In the twelfth year of King Ahaz of Judah, Hoshea son of Elah began to reign in Samaria over Israel; he reigned nine years. ² He did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, yet not like the kings of Israel who were before him. ³ King Shalmaneser of Assyria came up against him; Hoshea became his vassal and paid him tribute. ⁴ But the king of Assyria found treachery in Hoshea, for he had sent messengers to King So of Egypt and offered no tribute to the king of Assyria, as he had done year by year; therefore the king of Assyria confined him and imprisoned him.

⁵ Then the king of Assyria invaded all the land and came to Samaria; for three years he besieged it. ⁶ In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria captured Samaria; he carried the Israelites away to Assyria. He placed them in Halah, on the Habor, the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.

The brief description of the reign of King Hoshea of Samaria, the capture of Samaria, and the scattering of the Northern Kingdom of Israel is accomplished in six terse verses. Yet, this major event will prompt a much longer reflection of the why the exile of Israel occurs and the resettlement of the land under the Assyrian king. The dissolution of the Kingdom of Samaria does not end the dream of a reunification of Judah and Israel among the prophetic imagination, but it does mark a significant shift in the narrative of 2 Kings. The bulk of 1 and 2 Kings to this point has focused on the events of the northern kingdom of Israel while it tracks the kings of Judah and the occasional event or interaction with the northern kingdom, but now after this chapter the entire focus of the narrator will orient on the remaining kingdom of Judah. The siege of Samaria, the capture of Israel and the dispersal of the population were traumatic for the people involved and the narrative of the book of Kings is designed to provide a theological rationale for this catastrophic event (and the eventual exile of Judah) among the people of the covenant.

King Hoshea comes to power around 732 BCE and roughly five years into his reign the powerful king Tiglath-pileser III dies and his son Shalmaneser V assumes control of the Assyrian empire. Shalmaneser V only reigns for five years, and it is possible that his replacement Sargon II is not his heir and that he meets a violent end. The transition to Shalmaneser V was likely viewed in the region as an opportunity for nations to extract themselves from Assyrian rule and King Hoshea’s withholding of tribute payments and appeals to King So of Egypt[1] are acts of rebellion that Shalmaneser V responds to violently by besieging Samaria and occupying the land. It is possible that Shalmaneser V dies during the three-year long siege and Sargon II completed it (Assyrian records seem to indicate this) but ultimately the result is the same. The destruction of Samaria, the exile of Israel and the resettlement of the land.

One would expect that the king of Samaria who reigns during the destruction of the nation would receive a harsh judgment, but instead he receives a more favorable judgment than any other northern king. His toned-down judgement is unique among the northern kings. Rabbinical commentators have often indicated that Hoshea paid off the tribute to Assyria by removing the golden statues in Bethel and Dan, and this was viewed favorably by the God of Israel and that Hoshea removed the barriers for people from Israel to worship in Jerusalem.[2] The narrator of the book of Kings also tends to view accommodation with the empire of the day as a sign of unfaithfulness so it the better, if not positive evaluation, may be in part due to the resistance of Hoshea to the king of Assyria.

In the aftermath of the fall of Samaria, 2 Kings describes the exile of the population to two places in modern day Iraq and one in modern day Iran. The Assyrians scattered captured populations to prevent a concentration in one area where they could rise against Assyria, but it also is likely that the entire population of northern Israel is not exiled. Some do apparently migrate to Judah and Alex Israel notes that archeology shows an increase in the population of Judah during this period. (Israel, 2019, p. 269) Other portions of the population likely remained in place and were mixed with the people that Assyrian resettled in the region. The northern tribes of Israel ceased to be a unified people, but that does not stop the prophets of Judah from imagining a future where Judah and Ephraim can be reunited as the people of God.[3]

2 Kings 17: 7-23 Theological Rationale for the Exile of Israel (Samaria)

⁷ This occurred because the people of Israel had sinned against the LORD their God, who had brought them up out of the land of Egypt from under the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. They had worshiped other gods ⁸ and walked in the customs of the nations whom the LORD had driven out before the people of Israel and in the customs that the kings of Israel had introduced. ⁹ The people of Israel did things that were not right against the LORD their God. They built for themselves high places at all their towns, from watchtower to fortified city; ¹⁰ they set up for themselves pillars and sacred poles on every high hill and under every green tree; ¹¹ there they made offerings on all the high places, as the nations did whom the LORD had carried away before them. They did wicked things, provoking the LORD to anger; ¹² they served idols, of which the LORD had said to them, “You shall not do this.” ¹³ Yet the LORD warned Israel and Judah by every prophet and every seer, saying, “Turn from your evil ways and keep my commandments and my statutes, in accordance with all the law that I commanded your ancestors and that I sent to you by my servants the prophets.” ¹⁴ They would not listen but were stubborn, as their ancestors had been, who did not believe in the LORD their God. ¹⁵ They despised his statutes and his covenant that he had made with their ancestors and the warnings that he had given them. They went after false idols and became false; they followed the nations that were around them, concerning whom the LORD had commanded them that they should not do as they did. ¹⁶ They rejected all the commandments of the LORD their God and made for themselves cast images of two calves; they made a sacred pole, worshiped all the host of heaven, and served Baal. ¹⁷ They made their sons and their daughters pass through fire, used divination and augury, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the LORD, provoking him to anger. ¹⁸ Therefore the LORD was very angry with Israel and removed them out of his sight; none was left but the tribe of Judah alone.
¹⁹ Judah also did not keep the commandments of the LORD their God but walked in the customs that Israel had introduced. ²⁰ The LORD rejected all the descendants of Israel; he punished them and gave them into the hand of plunderers, until he had banished them from his presence.
²¹ When he had torn Israel from the house of David, they made Jeroboam son of Nebat king. Jeroboam drove Israel from following the LORD and made them commit great sin. ²² The people of Israel continued in all the sins that Jeroboam committed; they did not depart from them ²³ until the LORD removed Israel out of his sight, as he had foretold through all his servants the prophets. So Israel was exiled from their own land to Assyria until this day.

The narrator of the book of Kings is both narrating the history of the kings of Israel and Judah (and by extension the people of both nations) but also looking back from two exilic events (the Assyrian exile of Israel and the Babylonian exile of Judah) and utilizing the historical narrative told through a theological lens to explain how the nation went from its highpoint as a unified kingdom under Solomon to Samaria’s scattering and Judah’s exile. At this first moment of crisis, the narrator steps back from the events to explain why this crisis occurred. The rise of Assyria may form the political background of the story, but through the lens of the narrator Assyria is merely a tool of the LORD because of the multiple sins of the people. The sins of the people of Israel, and Judah, are couched in the language of idolatry, a violation of the central commandment given to the Hebrew people whether in the Ten Commandments[4] or in the Shema[5]. As Choon-Leong Seow can state about this section of chapter seventeen:

The text is ultimately more than a justification of the doom that God brought upon a nation long ago. It is a homily to those of us for whom there is still an opportunity to do what is right. It is a homily about what happens when we violate the first commandment and betray God, from whom no secrets can be kept. (NIB III: 257)

The language of this section is the language of the covenant in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. The people worshipped other gods and adopted the practices of the nations that surrounded them. As people of the covenant, they were intended to be a treasured possession, a priestly nation, and a holy people,[6] but instead they have become indistinguishable from the people the LORD drove out before them in the book of Joshua. The language seems to be hyperbole with the statement of setting up high places in all their towns and sacred poles on every high hill and under every green tree, but the intent of this section is to convey the pervasiveness of the corruption of Israel and Judah. From the Golden Calf during the exodus,[7] to the sins of Jeroboam constructing the golden calves at Bethel and Dan [8], to the practices of Ahab opposed by Elijah, and finally to this moment of exile the people have continued to violate the commandments and statutes of the LORD their God.

The command not to worship other gods or to adopt the practices of the land is one of the most frequently repeated injunctions throughout the law. Deuteronomy 18: 9-11 is a representative example which our text echoes:

“When you come into the land that the LORD your God is giving you, you must not learn to imitate the abhorrent practices of those nations. No one shall be found among you who makes a son or daughter pass through fire, or who practices divination, or is a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or one who casts spells, or who consults ghosts or spirits, or who seeks oracles from the dead.

The people of Israel and Judah have gone after the false practices of the nations and they have become false. They have worshipped idols who were false instead of worshipping the God who is unseen but real. The word translated false by the NRSVue is the Hebrew word hebel (or hevel) which is famously translated in Ecclesiastes as ‘vanity.’ Hebel is an evanescent word which means wind, vapor, smoke, or mist and is something transitory that cannot be grasped onto.[9] Walter Brueggemann picks up on this when he says of the people, “They worshipped “vapor” and they became vapor”” (Brueggemann, 2000, p. 480)

Even though the narrator of 1 and 2 Kings rarely notes the existence of the prophets who we have in the bible (after Elijah and Elisha), the last several chapters have been times when the biblical books of Amos, Hosea, Micah, and the first section of Isaiah address. There are prophets active in both Israel and Judah, in addition to the seers mentioned which also paint a troubled future with the LORD the God of Israel due to the disobedience of the people. This section which serves as both a summary of the history of disobedience and as a warning for Judah closes the narration of Israel but also points to the reality that this is an intentional action of the LORD the God of Israel. As Brueggemann helpfully summarizes:

The condemning action of Yahweh is summarized in a series of harsh verbs: reject, punish, gave into, banished, removed. The deportation is not an accident. It is not a matter of Assyrian policy. It is the sure and inevitable enactment of covenant curses that have been known from the outset of Sinai. (Brueggemann, 2000, p. 481)

The narrative of Israel has been viewed through the lens of the covenant and the cause of the exile of Israel is not Assyria, but God’s actions in response to their continual pattern of disregarding the covenant and adopting the worship and the practices of the nations of the region.

2 Kings 17: 24-41 The Ressettlement of Samaria by Assyria

²⁴ The king of Assyria brought people from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath, and Sepharvaim and placed them in the cities of Samaria in place of the people of Israel; they took possession of Samaria and settled in its cities. ²⁵ When they first settled there, they did not worship the LORD; therefore the LORD sent lions among them that killed some of them. ²⁶ So the king of Assyria was told, “The nations that you have carried away and placed in the cities of Samaria do not know the law of the god of the land; therefore he has sent lions among them; they are killing them because they do not know the law of the god of the land.” ²⁷ Then the king of Assyria commanded, “Send there one of the priests whom you carried away from there; let him go and live there and teach them the law of the god of the land.” ²⁸ So one of the priests whom they had carried away from Samaria came and lived in Bethel; he taught them how they should worship the LORD.
²⁹ But every nation still made gods of its own and put them in the shrines of the high places that the people of Samaria had made, every nation in the cities in which they lived; ³⁰ the people of Babylon made Succoth-benoth, the people of Cuth made Nergal, the people of Hamath made Ashima; ³¹ the Avvites made Nibhaz and Tartak; the Sepharvites burned their children in the fire to Adrammelech and Anammelech, the gods of Sepharvaim. ³² They also worshiped the LORD and appointed from among themselves all sorts of people as priests of the high places, who sacrificed for them in the shrines of the high places. ³³ So they worshiped the LORD but also served their own gods, after the manner of the nations from among whom they had been carried away. ³⁴ To this day they continue to practice their former customs.
They do not worship the LORD, and they do not follow the statutes or the ordinances or the law or the commandment that the LORD commanded the children of Jacob, whom he named Israel. ³⁵ The LORD had made a covenant with them and commanded them, “You shall not worship other gods or bow yourselves to them or serve them or sacrifice to them, ³⁶ but you shall worship the LORD, who brought you out of the land of Egypt with great power and with an outstretched arm; you shall bow yourselves to him, and to him you shall sacrifice. ³⁷ The statutes and the ordinances and the law and the commandment that he wrote for you, you shall always be careful to observe. You shall not worship other gods; ³⁸ you shall not forget the covenant that I have made with you. You shall not worship other gods, ³⁹ but you shall worship the LORD your God; he will deliver you out of the hand of all your enemies.” ⁴⁰ They would not listen, however, but continued to practice their former custom.
⁴¹ So these nations worshiped the LORD but also served their carved images; to this day their children and their children’s children continue to do as their ancestors did.

The Assyrians would resettle captured lands with displaced populations, here the text notes populations from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath, and Sepharvaim (modern day Iraq and Syria). These resettled populations bring their native gods and practices and are tormented by lions in the land. Lions have previously been used by God to deal with prophets who disobeyed God’s instructions,[10] and now become a judgment of the God of the land on these new people who do not know the LORD. Leviticus notes wild animals as one of God’s methods of punishing the disobedience of the people of the land:

I will let loose wild animals against you, and they shall bereave you of your children and destroy your livestock; they shall make you few in number, and your roads shall be deserted. Leviticus 26:22

Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor note how lions as predators would become more dangerous in the aftermath of wars devastation and depopulation, (Cogan, 1988, p. 210) but for the narrator of 2 Kings this is a part of God’s causing some partial, if incomplete in the view of 2 King’s narrator, worship of the LORD. The king of Assyria dispatched a priest who formerly served at Bethel to teach the people the worship of the LORD, but in the narrators view what emerges is an amalgamation of practices from the worship of the resettled people and the worship of the LORD taught by one of the priests at one of the shrines where the improper worship of the LORD, in the view of the narrator, began. This section becomes an origin story for the Samaritans of later generations who will be viewed with suspicion by their neighbors in Judah.

[1] Historians are unsure which King of Egypt this name is intended to refer to.

[2] 2 Chronicles narrates King Hezekiah of Judah inviting Israel to participate in the Great Passover, and even though most of Israel scorns this invitation a few attend (2 Chronicles 30:11)

[3] For example, Isaiah 11:10-16, Jeremiah 31, and Ezekiel 37 all imagine a reconstituted Israel (comprised of both Judah and Ephraim) under a Davidic king.

[4] Exodus 20: 2-6; Deuteronomy 5: 6-10.

[5] Deuteronomy 6: 4-5.

[6] Exodus 19: 5-6.

[7] Exodus 32.

[8] 1 Kings 12: 25-33.

[9] See a fuller discussion of hebel in my discussion of Ecclesiastes 1.

[10] 1 Kings 13: 24-28; 20:36.

A Small Light in Winter- A Christmas Story

Leave a reply

Frozen lake Baikal near Olkhon Island, Photo by Sergey Pesterev, Shared under CC 4.0https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Baikal#/media/File:Lake_Baikal_in_winter.jpg

It had been a difficult several years for Father Petrov. They had laid several of the men of his congregation to rest as casualties of the War to End All Wars between 1914 and 1917. Then came the unrest which led to the October revolution where the Bolsheviks gained control and a pall of fear was cast over the community as the official position of the new government considered the Russian Orthodox Church as a symbol of the old allegiances to the Czar. Yet even last Christmas he had celebrated in a beautiful church in Moscow with an ornate iconostasis of golden painted saints and angels as incense hung in the air and the congregation sang the chants into the night to mark the night of the Savior’s birth. But as 1918 unfolded the new government began to make its mark on Moscow. Food was in short supply and so the leaders began to point to those who had formerly been nobles, the educated, and then to the ornate and beautifully domed structures of the Orthodox churches of the city. It had been a dreary October day when worship was interrupted by uniformed men who came in arresting Father Petrov and all who had dared to assemble on that day, torching the church and sending Father Petrov and his flock on the Trans-Siberian Railway to Irkutsk where they were marched along the shore of Lake Baikal to a bleak camp where they were officially to be reeducated, but it quickly became clear that ultimately they were moved to this land to be forgotten, to pass away in the Siberian winter.

Yet, despite the cold nights and inadequate shelter, Christmas arrived in 1918. There were no songbooks, no incense, no wall of icons or brightly painted walls of a church. Olga, one of his faithful members, had managed to grab seven candles and set them up in the large shed where the tools that were used for coal mining were stored. Father Petrov had a bible and as he carried his lamp to the shed where those who would celebrate this bitterly cold Christmas were gathered, he wondered what he would do without the rituals and relics of the church that had formed him for a style of worship that had endured for centuries. As he approached the shed, he looked to the lantern in his hand and thought of Jesus’ words about a lamp needing to be placed on a lampstand and not being hidden under a bushel basket, and so he found a small table and placed his lamp on it. More people than he had expected had gathered, others in the work camp seeking a small light in winter, a taste of hope in the hopelessness, a reminder of a different world, and perhaps they looked to each other in this land of the forgotten for another soul to see them and remind them that they mattered.

Father Petrov breathed in the cold air and began with the words from John’s gospel, “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.” Then he lit the first candle and said, “and we are witnesses to that light.” Little Anya, who had seen far more than any young child should see in the last months, echoed Father Petrov’s words, “we are witnesses to that light.” And slowly at first and then in rapidly increasing numbers the remainder of the gathered congregation echoed, “and we are witnesses to that light.” Then Olga, Anya’s mother, read from the prophet Isaiah how, “The people who lived in darkness have seen a great light; those who lived in a land of deep darkness, on them light has shined.” Then Olga lit the second candle and said, “and we are witnesses to that light.” This time the community responded immediately and with more force, “and we are witnesses to that light.”

Anya now stepped up beside her mother and said the words she had been practicing for this night, how the prophet Isaiah continued saying, “Unto us a child has been born, unto us a son is given, and the government will be upon his shoulders, and he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. Great will be his kingdom, and there will be endless peace.” Then Anya lit the third candle and with the boldness of a child proclaimed, “and we are children of God’s son.” The congregation with a little bit of joy at seeing the faith of a child echoed, “and we are children of God’s son.”

Russian Orthodox Icon of the Archangel Gabriel

Then Rita came forward to tell of how the angel Gabriel came to Mary one fateful night and told Mary, “Do not be afraid.” How often God’s messengers came to God’s people in scary times and told them not to be afraid but before she continued on she brought out from her coat an icon of the angel Gabriel that she had saved from the church before it had been destroyed, and she told of the angel’s message of the virgin Mary and Mary’s words in response, “Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word.” Then Rita lit the fourth candle and said, “And we are servants of the Lord.” The community echoed, “And we are servants of the Lord.” Then Rita’s husband Jusef came and told of Joseph, the father of Jesus, who was a righteous man trying to find a way between what God expected of him in the law and mercy for his betrothed Mary who was found to be with child, and how the angel of the Lord came to him in a dream and spoke again the words, “Do not be afraid.” And then explained to Joseph that the child to be born was from God and was the fulfillment of prophecy. “Look, the virgin shall become pregnant and give birth to a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,” which means, “God is with us.” Perhaps we too need to hear in this godforsaken place that God has not forsaken us, indeed God is with us. And then lighting the fifth candle Jusef declared, “And we serve the God who is with us.” And the community echoed, “And we serve the God who is with us.”

Then Victor came forward and he also took from his coat an icon that had been one from his home, an icon of the Christmas scene, and he told the story from the gospel of Luke of Joseph and Mary coming to Bethlehem and finding no place other than a shed, perhaps not unlike the shed they gathered in that night, and the child was born to them, unseen by relatives or most of the world. But how in the night the angel of the Lord came to shepherds and again told them, “Do not be afraid.” And the angel told the good news of great joy for all the people he had been entrusted with and told these shepherds how to find the child and its parents. How the heavenly host broke into song and the shepherds in their amazement went to find Mary and Joseph and the child promised to them, and described their amazement to anyone who heard, and how Mary treasured these things in her heart. Then Victor said, “And we too treasure these things in our heart.” He lit the sixth candle as the congregation echoed, “And we too treasure these things in our heart.”

Finally, Sophia, the oldest living member of the community at seventy-five years old, came to the front and turned to the gospel of John. She said in a clear voice, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overtake it.” She lit the final candle and said, “And we are servants of that light.” To which the congregation responded, “And we are servants of that light.” Father Petrov gave a final blessing in the cold winter night and summarized how we were indeed servants of the light who brings light to people living in darkness, who promises us a child who will lead us into a time of peace, who tells his servants not to be afraid, how even in godforsaken places how our God is with us, how we too can treasure these things in our hearts, for the one who was with God in the beginning at creation is here among us bringing light and life into our darkness. He uttered a final blessing for this flock gathered in the shed and then they made their way back to their barracks where they would attempt to shelter from the piercing wind blowing over the lake. But as the left they carried with them a little hope in what before had seemed hopeless, and a small light in the winter.

This story has historical elements, but it is a fictional story. The place and time are real, but the specifics of the situation and the characters only existed in my imagination prior to this night. May this Christmas story from a cold and dark world bring a little light into your season.

2 Kings 16 King Ahaz and the Syro-Ephraimite War

Leave a reply

Charles-Antoine Bridan, Relief on the Wall of Notre Dame Cathedral in Chartres (1786-1789) Isaiah speaking to King Ahaz

2 Kings 16

¹ In the seventeenth year of Pekah son of Remaliah, King Ahaz son of Jotham of Judah began to reign. ² Ahaz was twenty years old when he began to reign; he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem. He did not do what was right in the sight of the LORD his God, as his ancestor David had done, ³ but he walked in the way of the kings of Israel. He even made his son pass through fire, according to the abominable practices of the nations whom the LORD had driven out before the people of Israel. ⁴ He sacrificed and made offerings on the high places, on the hills, and under every green tree.
⁵ Then King Rezin of Aram and King Pekah son of Remaliah of Israel came up to wage war on Jerusalem; they besieged Ahaz but could not conquer him. ⁶ At that time King Rezin of Aram recovered Elath for Edom and drove the Judeans from Elath, and the Edomites came to Elath, where they live to this day. ⁷ Ahaz sent messengers to King Tiglath-pileser of Assyria, saying, “I am your servant and your son. Come up and rescue me from the hand of the king of Aram and from the hand of the king of Israel, who are attacking me.” ⁸ Ahaz also took the silver and gold found in the house of the Lord and in the treasures of the king’s house and sent a present to the king of Assyria. ⁹ The king of Assyria listened to him; the king of Assyria marched up against Damascus and took it, carrying its people captive to Kir; then he killed Rezin.
¹⁰ When King Ahaz went to Damascus to meet King Tiglath-pileser of Assyria, he saw the altar that was at Damascus. King Ahaz sent to the priest Uriah a model of the altar and its pattern exact in all its details. ¹¹ The priest Uriah built the altar; in accordance with all that King Ahaz had sent from Damascus, so did the priest Uriah build it, before King Ahaz arrived from Damascus. ¹² When the king came from Damascus, the king viewed the altar. Then the king drew near to the altar, went up on it, ¹³ and offered his burnt offering and his grain offering, poured his drink offering, and dashed the blood of his offerings of well-being against the altar. ¹⁴ The bronze altar that was before the LORD he removed from the front of the house, from the place between his altar and the house of the LORD, and put it on the north side of his altar. ¹⁵ King Ahaz commanded the priest Uriah, saying, “Upon the great altar offer the morning burnt offering and the evening grain offering and the king’s burnt offering and his grain offering, with the burnt offering of all the people of the land, their grain offering, and their drink offering; then dash against it all the blood of the burnt offering and all the blood of the sacrifice, but the bronze altar shall be for me to inquire by.” ¹⁶ The priest Uriah did everything that King Ahaz commanded.
¹⁷ Then King Ahaz cut off the frames of the stands and removed the laver from them; he removed the sea from the bronze oxen that were under it and put it on a pediment of stone. ¹⁸ The covered portal for use on the Sabbath that had been built inside the palace and the outer entrance for the king he removed from the house of the Lord. He did this because of the king of Assyria. ¹⁹ Now the rest of the acts of Ahaz that he did, are they not written in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Judah? ²⁰ Ahaz slept with his ancestors and was buried with his ancestors in the city of David; his son Hezekiah succeeded him.

King Ahaz son of Jotham bears the same name as Jehoahaz son of Josiah (Ahaz is the shortened form of the name) but unlike the recent kings of Judah he receives a judgment by the narrator which is harsher than any other king in Judah or Israel. King Ahaz reigns at a critical juncture in the story of Judah and Israel and the surrounding region and the prophet Isaiah provides an additional witness to this time of conflict known as the Syro-Ephraimite War by historians. 2 Kings 16 and its parallel in 2 Chronicles 28, which is even harsher in its evaluation of Ahaz, point to an unfaithful king who is spared only by God’s continuing faithfulness to the line of David.

The theological judgment of King Ahaz in both 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles contrasts with the qualified faithfulness of his ancestors with the idolatrous practices of his reign. The reference to walking in the ways of the kings of Israel may refer to the crafting of new images to worship like the frequently mentioned sins of Jeroboam (1 Kings 12: 25-33) and 2 Chronicles 28:2 indicates that Ahaz cast images of the Baals. Also indicated in both 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles is passing his sons through fire, imagery associated with the worship of Molech the god of the Ammonites in the bible. Passing a child through fire (presumably sacrificing the child to a god) is prohibited in Deuteronomy 18:10. Many scholars have hypothesized that “Ahaz sacrificed his first-born during the pressing hours of the siege of Jerusalem by the Syro-Ephraimite armies, as Mesha, king of Moab, had once done under similar circumstances” (Cogan, 1988, p. 186) (see 2 Kings 3:27 for Mesha, king of Moab) but this can only be hypothesized and 2 Chronicles indicates that one of the king’s sons is captured in the conflict. 2 Chronicles also heightens the depravity of Ahaz by indicating that “he sacrificed and made offerings on the high places, on the hills, and under every green tree.” (2 Chronicles 28:4) From the theological perspective of both 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles King Ahaz has a disastrous impact upon Judah, and Judah’s defeats are directly attributed to his apostacy in 2 Chronicles.

The prophet Isaiah points to the intent of the Syro-Ephraimite war at the beginning of Isaiah 7:

¹ In the days of Ahaz son of Jotham son of Uzziah, king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and King Pekah son of Remaliah of Israel went up to attack Jerusalem but could not conquer it. ² When the house of David heard that Aram had allied itself with Ephraim, the heart of Ahaz and the heart of his people shook as the trees of the forest shake before the wind.
³ Then the LORD said to Isaiah, “Go out to meet Ahaz, you and your son Shear-jashub, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool on the highway to the fuller’s field, ⁴ and say to him: Take heed, be quiet, do not fear, and do not let your heart be faint because of these two smoldering stumps of firebrands, because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and the son of Remaliah. ⁵ Because Aram—with Ephraim and the son of Remaliah—has plotted evil against you, saying, ⁶ ‘Let us go up against Judah and terrify it and conquer it for ourselves and make the son of Tabeel king in it’ (Isaiah 7:1-6)

Isaiah is sent to King Ahaz to provide him reassurance that God is not going to allow the forces of Aram and Israel to remove him and put another more compliant ruler in his place. This is the background of Isaiah’s famous Immanuel prophecy: “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son and shall name him Immanuel.” (Isaiah 7:14) Within the original context of this time of King Ahaz the message of hope from Isaiah was that within two years the threat of Israel and Aram would be eliminated, but this section of Isaiah also had an important voice in later Jewish messianic hope and Christianity. Isaiah encourages Ahaz not to fear and to stand firm in faith, ultimately Ahaz chooses a different path that both 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles point to.

The Syro-Ephraimite War (736-732 BCE) was the result of a shifting power dynamic in the region. The Assyrian forces under Tiglath-Pileser III have become a dominant force in the region and Aram and Israel are attempting to build a coalition to resist this rising threat. In this regional struggle for power Judah stands unaligned as Aram, Israel, Philistia, and Edom attempt to both seize power in Judah and promote a regime change that will bring Judah into this alliance against Assyria. 2 Chronicles narrates a catastrophic defeat of Judah. As Alex Israel summarizes:

The battle statistic reinforce the magnitude and severity of the attack: 120,000 casualties in a single day of fighting, 200,000 Judahite women and children captured as prisoners of war, and the king’s son as well as other key governmental officials among the dead. (Israel, 2019, p. 244)

Ahaz is caught between forces coming from multiple directions. Israel and Aram have frequently been against Judah in recent history. Judah loses control of Elath, under Judah’s control since the time of Uzziah/Azariah and is clearly unable to manage conflict on multiple military fronts. Ahaz may have already failed the theological evaluation of 2 Kings, but he makes a fateful choice in his military vulnerability. King Ahaz sends tribute to King Tiglath-Pileser III of Assyria.

Although 2 Chronicles states that Assyria refuses to help Judah, 2 Kings gives the impression that Assyria was eager to take advantage of the situation. Alex Israel summarizes again:

One imagines that Assyria is only too happy to accept the offer. They are securing an ally, a foothold, in the sought-after region, and undermining the enemy coalition. (Israel, 2019, p. 245)

While Aram and Israel attack Judah, Assyria attacks and conquers Damascus, the capital of Aram taking Aram out of the fight.

King Ahaz remains in power as a vassal of Assyria and the chapter concludes with Ahaz traveling to Damascus to pay tribute to Tiglath-Pileser III. Abraham Heschel in his work The Prophets indicates that for Assyria, “Political subservience involved acceptance of her religious institutions.” (Heschel, 1962, p. 72) and this may form a part of Ahaz’s adoption of this design for a new altar. Yet, the priest Uriah is assumed to be a supporter of the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 8:2) and one would assume faithful to the LORD the God of Israel so his immediate compliance with the king on this altar has led some interpreters to wonder if the new altar was not idolatrous, but merely offensive because it displaced Solomon’s original altar described in 1 Kings 8:64. The stands, lavers, the bronze oxen, and the covered portal may have been removed and melted down as payment to Assyria, but bronze was not a highly valuable metal at the time so that is not certain. 2 Kings indicates these changes were made because of the king of Assyria, but why the king of Assyria desired these changes is uncertain. Interpreters are divided about Ahaz’s intent and the role of Uriah the priest in these changes in the temple, but for the narrator of 2 Kings the time of Ahaz has been a disaster for the faithfulness of the people of Judah and for the welfare of the nation.

Review of Empire of the Dawn by Jay Kristoff

Leave a reply

For me a five-star book is something that either I want to read again or something that is so profound it makes an immediate impact. There are lots of ways that books can be compelling: a unique idea, an interesting set of characters, a complex plot, an artistic use of the English language and more. Reading is also a subjective experience, so what appeals to me as a reader may be very different for you. I read a lot for both pleasure and work, but these short reviews are a way for me to show my appreciation for the work and the craft of the author of the reviewed work.

Jay Kristoff quickly became one of my favorite authors with both the Nevernight trilogy and this worthy conclusion to the Empire of the Vampire trilogy. This narrative journey through Empire of the Vampire, Empire of the Damned and now Empire of the Dawn has been phenomenal. Gabriel de Leon, the last Silversaint (vampire hunter), Celene Castia, Gabriel’s sister and the last Liathe, and Dior le Chance, the young woman who is believed to have the power to end the eternal darkness of their world form the central characters in this final volume. The story is dark, the narration of the conflict scenes so rich I could imagine them as a manga or anime (I think that is the only way you could faithfully replicate the speed and damage of these vampire vs Silversaint fights). The world cloaked in darkness, the place of religion and mysticism, the rich imagery in a perilous world, there is so much to love in this long but engaging story of a world where vampires are no longer consigned to the night and humanity hangs on the precipice. But beyond the incredible plot, worldbuilding, and hard driving action are the characters and their interactions with one another. There were so many times the dialogue between the characters echoed the pattern of conversations I had with people in the army, the way men rib each other to show they care, the language, and verbal duels that went along with the physical trials. There were countless times I would look up from the page and say, “Damn. Jay Kristoff can write.”

Each of the volumes of this trilogy were the best read of the year they were released and there is some regret in coming to the end of this massive journey. Jay Kristoff will not be for every reader: his language is the language of fighting men which includes frequent swearing (and he has some really interesting ways of utilizing the coarser parts of the English language) and there are several very spicy erotic scenes throughout the books. It is a dark world (literally and metaphorically) where no human character or animal character is safe. It is fantasy with horror and romantic elements set in a beautifully imagined (and illustrated if you buy a physical copy) world. It is a poignantly human story of characters who walk through the hell of war, betrayal, death, and times that seem hopeless. People will be divided on the ending of the book, but I thought it was masterful use of a plot device that breaks the fourth wall with a pair of narrators who have their own motivations for why they tell the story they are spinning. I did not want to put this almost eight-hundred-page book down, each time I picked it up it hooked me. I loved this dark gothic story of faith and fighting in a world struggling against four vampiric armies. The symbology and the myth, the conversations and the combat, the characters and the plot all come together to form the favorite trilogy I have ever read.

2 Kings 15 The Stability of Judah in Contrast to the Instability of Samaria

Leave a reply

The King Uzziah Stricken with Leprosy, by Rembrandt, 1635.

2 Kings 15: 1-7 King Azariah (Uzziah) of Judah

¹ In the twenty-seventh year of King Jeroboam of Israel, King Azariah son of Amaziah of Judah began to reign. ² He was sixteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned fifty-two years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Jecoliah of Jerusalem. ³ He did what was right in the sight of the Lord, just as his father Amaziah had done. ⁴ Nevertheless, the high places were not taken away; the people still sacrificed and made offerings on the high places. ⁵ The Lord struck the king so that he had a defiling skin disease to the day of his death and lived in a separate house. Jotham the king’s son was in charge of the palace, governing the people of the land. ⁶ Now the rest of the acts of Azariah and all that he did, are they not written in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Judah? ⁷ Azariah slept with his ancestors; they buried him with his ancestors in the city of David; his son Jotham succeeded him.

King Azariah, also known as King Uzziah, has a long and successful reign over Judah. Uzziah and Azariah are used interchangeably in scriptures and even in this chapter and Uzziah was likely the name he assumed as king of Judah. His fifty-two-year reign begins in the middle of the forty-one year reign of Jeroboam II and both kings enjoy a period of military success and national resurgence. Azariah’s long and stable reign contrasts with his two predecessors (Joash and Amaziah) who saw the royal and temple treasuries diminished and in their political or military weakness were ultimately assassinated by those who served them. The stability during the time of Azariah in Judah also contrasts sharply with the instability in Samaria after the death of Jeroboam II.

Although 2 Kings does not spend a lot of time on the reign of Azariah/Uzziah his story is greatly expanded in 2 Chronicles 26. According to 2 Chronicles Azariah/Uzziah is a successful military leader who wins victories over Philistia, Ammon and extends Judah’s trade and military influence over the region. 2 Kings 14:22 gives a small window into the king’s success when it notes, “He rebuilt Elath and restored it to Judah after King Amaziah slept with his ancestors.” This small note indicates a large accomplishment only shared by Solomon, Jehoshaphat and Hezekiah. This gave Judah a port on the Mediterranean but also required them to control not only the port but the wilderness between. Alex Israel notes that he controls both major highways between Egypt and Mesopotamia, a lucrative trade route and source of income for the nation. (Israel, 2019, p. 227) 2 Chronicles also notes that King Uzziah strengthened the city walls of Jerusalem and increased the agricultural output of the land by his improvements and built up the army.

2 Kings’ brief account of this king who did what was right in the sight of the LORD ends with the jarring note that the LORD struck the king with ‘a defiling skin disease.’ This skin disease was traditionally rendered leprosy in most translations although we now believe that Hanson’s disease (which is what we call leprosy today) did not exist in the Middle East during this time. Yet, this affliction was normally associated with a judgment from God, and 2 Chronicles tells of the king entering the temple to offer incense, the job of the priests, and being struck with ‘leprosy’ as a punishment. Ultimately in 2 Chronicles the king is punished for overstepping his responsibility, attempting to fulfill both the kingly and the priestly role and ends his life separated from the palace and his responsibilities were assumed by his son Jotham until he died.

It is interesting that 2 Kings does not go into the success and fall of Azariah/Uzziah in the same manner as 2 Chronicles. Perhaps the narrator of 2 Kings doesn’t want to focus on the military success of Azariah in contrast to the lack of success by Joash and Amaziah who are both evaluated as kings who did what was right in the site of the LORD and at the same time does not want to focus on the act that leads to the king’s affliction. Despite the short narration of Azariah’s lengthy reign it is a consequential time as Judah remains stable as Northern Israel becomes chaotic and is one generation from collapse. This is also a time of prophetic voices and Isaiah (first Isaiah), Amos, Hosea, and Micah all give voice to this time in Israel and Judah.

2 Kings 15: 8-12 The Brief Reign of Zechariah King of Israel and the End of the Jehu Dynasty

⁸ In the thirty-eighth year of King Azariah of Judah, Zechariah son of Jeroboam reigned over Israel in Samaria six months. ⁹ He did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, as his ancestors had done. He did not depart from the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat that he caused Israel to sin. ¹⁰ Shallum son of Jabesh conspired against him and struck him down in Ibleam and killed him and reigned in place of him. ¹¹ Now the rest of the deeds of Zechariah are written in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel. ¹² This was the promise of the Lord that he gave to Jehu, “Your sons shall sit on the throne of Israel to the fourth generation.” And so it happened.

The message of the LORD to Jehu after the destruction of the Omri dynasty indicated that his line would continue for four generations (2 Kings 10:30) and now after the death of Jeroboam II, the fourth generation, the Jehu dynasty collapses six months later. Jehu’s line ruled in Samaria for ninety-two years and it was enjoying a period of success under Jeroboam II, but the public murder of Zechariah ignites a power for struggle that will be violent and ultimately weaken Northern Israel as the Assyrian empire under Tiglath-Pileser III ascends. Zechariah is the first of a group of inconsequential kings in Samaria whose cumulative impact is very consequential in weakening Israel in a dangerous world.

2 Kings 15: 13-31 A Tumultuous Period in Israel

¹³ Shallum son of Jabesh began to reign in the thirty-ninth year of King Uzziah of Judah; he reigned one month in Samaria. ¹⁴ Then Menahem son of Gadi came up from Tirzah and came to Samaria; he struck down Shallum son of Jabesh in Samaria and killed him; he reigned in place of him. ¹⁵ Now the rest of the deeds of Shallum, including the conspiracy that he made, are written in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel. ¹⁶ At that time Menahem sacked Tiphsah, all who were in it and its territory from Tirzah on; because they did not open it to him, he sacked it. He ripped open all the pregnant women in it.

¹⁷ In the thirty-ninth year of King Azariah of Judah, Menahem son of Gadi began to reign over Israel; he reigned ten years in Samaria. ¹⁸ He did what was evil in the sight of the Lord; he did not depart all his days from any of the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat that he caused Israel to sin. ¹⁹ King Pul of Assyria came against the land; Menahem gave Pul a thousand talents of silver, so that he might help him confirm his hold on the royal power. ²⁰ Menahem exacted the silver from Israel, that is, from all the wealthy, fifty shekels of silver from each one, to give to the king of Assyria. So the king of Assyria turned back and did not stay there in the land. ²¹ Now the rest of the deeds of Menahem and all that he did, are they not written in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel? ²² Menahem slept with his ancestors, and his son Pekahiah succeeded him.

²³ In the fiftieth year of King Azariah of Judah, Pekahiah son of Menahem began to reign over Israel in Samaria; he reigned two years. ²⁴ He did what was evil in the sight of the Lord; he did not turn away from the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat that he caused Israel to sin. ²⁵ Pekah son of Remaliah, his captain, conspired against him with fifty of the Gileadites and attacked him in Samaria, in the citadel of the palace along with Argob and Arieh; he killed him and reigned in place of him. ²⁶ Now the rest of the deeds of Pekahiah and all that he did are written in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel.

²⁷ In the fifty-second year of King Azariah of Judah, Pekah son of Remaliah began to reign over Israel in Samaria; he reigned twenty years. ²⁸ He did what was evil in the sight of the Lord; he did not depart from the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat that he caused Israel to sin.
²⁹ In the days of King Pekah of Israel, King Tiglath-pileser of Assyria came and captured Ijon, Abel-beth-maacah, Janoah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali, and he carried the people captive to Assyria. ³⁰ Then Hoshea son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah son of Remaliah, attacked him, and killed him; he reigned in place of him, in the twentieth year of Jotham son of Uzziah. ³¹ Now the rest of the acts of Pekah and all that he did are written in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel.

Shallum son of Jabesh, Menahem son of Gadi, Pekahiah son of Menahem and Peka son of Remaliah all struggle for power during the stable reign of Azariah/Uzziah and (during Pekah’s reign in Samaria) the transition to Azariah’s son Jothan. Shallum reigns only for a month before he is overthrown by Menahem. Menahem assumes power in a violent manner and his description of sacking Tiphsah and tearing open the wombs of pregnant women describes him like the worst oppressors of Israel[1] and it is the violent ones who have ascended to power. Menahem may reign for ten years in Samaria but the large tribute payment[2] to Assyria under Tiglath-Pileser III[3] that he extracts from the gibbor hahayil (NRSVue ‘wealthy’)[4] likely means he is ruling with the political and even possibly military support of Assyria. When he dies his son is only to reign for two years. There are likely factions looking to align the nation with Assyria or Egypt as Hosea states:

Ephraim has become like a dove,
silly and without sense;
they call upon Egypt, they go to Assyria. (Hosea 7:11)

This is conjecture, but if Peka son of Remaliah ended the alliance with Assyria it would make sense of Tiglath-Pileser III seizing territory as well as dragging the captured people into exile. Records from Assyria indicate that there was a campaign against Israel in 733-732 BC and they took 13,520 people into exile. (Israel, 2019, p. 238) The Assyrian were known for taking exiles and displacing them to where they are totally dependent on Assyria and forced to blend into the larger Assyrian world. (Cogan, 1988, p. 177) The enemy has been within Samaria with this string of strongmen seizing power but now they face a much larger threat which is penetrating their borders and capturing the people and Israel appears powerless to resist.

2 Kings 15: 32-38 King Jothan of Judah

³² In the second year of King Pekah son of Remaliah of Israel, King Jotham son of Uzziah of Judah began to reign. ³³ He was twenty-five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Jerusha daughter of Zadok. ³⁴ He did what was right in the sight of the Lord, just as his father Uzziah had done. ³⁵ Nevertheless, the high places were not removed; the people still sacrificed and made offerings on the high places. He built the upper gate of the house of the Lord. ³⁶ Now the rest of the acts of Jotham and all that he did, are they not written in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Judah? ³⁷ In those days the Lord began to send King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah against Judah. ³⁸ Jotham slept with his ancestors and was buried with his ancestors in the city of David, his ancestor; his son Ahaz succeeded him.

In contrast to the bloody and dangerous instability of Samaria, Judah continues to function under another king of the Davidic line who does what is right in the sight of the LORD. 2 Chronicles 27 indicates that Jothan continues to build up the walls and defenses of Judah, and the king is likely aware of the growing threat to the north in Assyria. Again, 2 Chronicles portrays Jothan as a militarily successful king and in 2 Kings we have indication of both Aram and Samaria/Northern Israel attacking Judah (possibly as agents of Assyria) yet we do not have any indication that Judah is losing territory. Resin and Pekah may be attempting to raid for resources in their own struggles against the rising might of Assyria, but for the moment the threat to stable Judah is significantly less than it appears to be for Northern Israel.

[1] See for example Elisha’s description of what Hazael will do in 2 Kings 8:12, the accusations against Edom in Amos 1:13, or the judgement oracle of Hosea 13:16.

[2] Roughly seventy five thousand pounds of silver.

[3] King Pul is a nickname in late sources for Tiglath-Pileser III, and the use of this title in 2 Kings indicated the familiarity of the narrator with this leader of Assyria. (Israel, 2019, p. 238)

[4] Gibbor hahayil is often rendered mighty ones and often this was assumed to have military connotations. This term is common in the book of Judges, but it also can refer to landowners like Boaz in the book of Ruth. Wealthy may be the proper translation, but with Menahem being a warrior leader, it may also indicate something like warlords who are maintaining power beneath him.

2 Kings 14 King Amaziah of Judah and King Jehoash and Jeroboam II of Israel

1 Reply

Stele of Adad-nirari III from Tell al-Rimah, now in the Iraq Museum, mentions the name of Jehoash the Samarian

2 Kings 14: 1-22

¹ In the second year of King Joash son of Joahaz of Israel, King Amaziah son of Joash of Judah began to reign. ² He was twenty-five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Jehoaddin of Jerusalem. ³ He did what was right in the sight of the LORD, yet not like his ancestor David; in all things he did as his father Joash had done. ⁴ But the high places were not removed; the people still sacrificed and made offerings on the high places. ⁵ As soon as the royal power was firmly in his hand, he killed his servants who had murdered his father the king. ⁶ But he did not put to death the children of the murderers, according to what is written in the book of the law of Moses, where the Lord commanded, “The parents shall not be put to death for the children or the children be put to death for the parents, but all shall be put to death for their own sins.”
⁷ He killed ten thousand Edomites in the Valley of Salt and took Sela by storm; he called it Jokthe-el, which is its name to this day.
⁸ Then Amaziah sent messengers to King Jehoash son of Jehoahaz son of Jehu of Israel, saying, “Come, let us look one another in the face.” ⁹ King Jehoash of Israel sent word to King Amaziah of Judah, “A thornbush on Lebanon sent to a cedar on Lebanon, saying, ‘Give your daughter to my son for a wife,’ but a wild animal of Lebanon passed by and trampled down the thornbush. ¹⁰ You have indeed defeated Edom, and your heart has lifted you up. Be content with your glory and stay at home, for why should you provoke trouble so that you fall, you and Judah with you?”
¹¹ But Amaziah would not listen. So King Jehoash of Israel went up; he and King Amaziah of Judah faced one another in battle at Beth-shemesh, which belongs to Judah. ¹² Judah was defeated by Israel; everyone fled home. ¹³ King Jehoash of Israel captured King Amaziah of Judah son of Jehoash son of Ahaziah at Beth-shemesh; he came to Jerusalem and broke down the wall of Jerusalem from the Ephraim Gate to the Corner Gate, a distance of four hundred cubits. ¹⁴ He seized all the gold and silver and all the vessels that were found in the house of the LORD and in the treasuries of the king’s house, as well as hostages; then he returned to Samaria.
¹⁵ Now the rest of the acts that Jehoash did, his might, and how he fought with King Amaziah of Judah, are they not written in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel? ¹⁶ Jehoash slept with his ancestors and was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel; then his son Jeroboam succeeded him.
¹⁷ King Amaziah son of Joash of Judah lived fifteen years after the death of King Jehoash son of Jehoahaz of Israel. ¹⁸ Now the rest of the deeds of Amaziah, are they not written in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Judah? ¹⁹ They made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem, and he fled to Lachish. But they sent after him to Lachish and killed him there. ²⁰ They brought him on horses; he was buried in Jerusalem with his ancestors in the city of David. ²¹ All the people of Judah took Azariah, who was sixteen years old, and made him king to succeed his father Amaziah. ²² He rebuilt Elath and restored it to Judah, after King Amaziah slept with his ancestors.

This is a fascinating passage that looks at the paradox of King Amaziah’s twenty-nine-year reign and highlights some of the ways that most biblical scholars struggle with the competing desires of the theological perspective of the text and the expectation of kings in the ancient world. Walter Brueggemann, a well-respected and highly published biblical scholar, highlights this for me when he states, “What strikes one most is that the reign of Amaziah is dominated by acts of violence.” (Brueggemann, 2000, p. 439) The text does highlight three instances of conflict in Amaziah’s almost three decade long reign, and there is an internal conflict within the theological perspective of the narrator of 2 Kings. On the one hand, from the very beginning of Israel having kings, these kings were warriors who led the people in conflict. The Old Testament may want a king to trust primarily in God, and military victories are primarily a sign of the LORD the God of Israel’s deliverance and not the military prowess of the king and their military leaders, and yet it shares a view with the majority of the ancient world that the primary role of a king was to expand their territory and wealth through the exercise of their power. Susan Kay Penman, a historical fiction author, shares some of this idea in writing about her perspective on Richard the Lionheart in the comments at the end of her historical fiction retelling Lionheart:

War was the vocation of kings in the Middle Ages, and, at that, Richard excelled; he was almost invincible in hand-to-hand combat, and military historians consider him one of the best medieval generals. It was in the Holy Land that the Lionheart legend took root, and his bravura exploits won him a permanent place in the pantheon of semimythic heroes, those men whose fame transcended their own time. Even people with little knowledge of history have heard of Caesar, Alexander, Napolean—and Richard Lionheart. This would have pleased Richard greatly, for he was a shrewd manipulator of his public image. (Penman, 2013, p. 582)

Even though there are many differences between the Middle Ages and the late Iron Age where Amaziah reigns, the ancient world expected kings to accumulate wealth primarily through gaining land and resources. There is an important caveat in the narration of the stories of the kings of Israel and Judah in 1&2 Kings which evaluates these kings by their faithfulness to the worship of the LORD the God of Israel.

The evaluation of King Amaziah in the beginning of the text is a positive one with the caveat that the high places were not removed. King Amaziah, like his father Joash in 2 Kings, is faithful to the LORD and we even see him conducting justice in the framework of Deuteronomy. 2 Kings explicitly references Deuteronomy 24:16 to justify the king’s decision not to put to death the family of the men who assassinated his father. From the Deuteronomic theology which forms the perspective of the narrator of 2 Kings Amaziah is a faithful king who worships God and practices judgment according to the law.

From a military perspective King Amaziah starts out well by winning a significant victory over Edom and expanding the territory of Judah by adding the city Sela, which is renamed Jokthe-el. Yet, Amaziah makes a critical error in engaging King Jehoash of Israel in battle. The NIV translates verse eight in a way that indicates the antagonistic intent of Amaziah, “with the challenge: “Come, meet me face to face.” Northern Israel is larger and more populous and has been continually engaged with Aram throughout this time. Amaziah may see his role as recapturing Israel and reuniting the entire kingdom under Davidic rule, but he also misreads the situation. The threat to northern Israel from Aram has diminished with the rise of the Assyrian empire which provides a moment of relative peace for Samaria. Jehoash may understand the broader implications of the struggle for power to his north and his parable indicates that war between the two parties is not wise because there is a third party (perhaps Aram of Assyria) who can trample down Judah the insignificant thornbush next to the cedar of Israel. There is an obvious warning but also condescending tone to Jehoash’s answer to Amaziah and Amaziah marches out but is defeated before he even leaves the boundary of Judah. Even though 2 Kings does not include Amaziah’s defeat in its overall evaluation of his reign the inclusion of this narrative paints the king in a negative light. Amaziah’s ambition not only results in his defeat and capture but also in the destruction of a six-hundred-foot section of Jerusalem’s northern wall, a humiliation for the city and the king. In addition, Samaria seizes the wealth of Judah stored in the king’s household and the temple. The royal and temple treasuries have been emptied in a humiliating manner under consecutive Davidic kings.

It is unclear how long Amaziah remains captive, but he continues to reign fifteen years after the death of Jehoash who captured him. Yet, his reign ends with a coup that causes him to flee to Lachish where he is captured, killed, and returned to Jerusalem to be buried with his ancestors. He may receive the honor of being buried in Jerusalem but his time as the king of Judah ends in disaster. His reign is the sole example of a time when Israel will penetrate the walls of Jerusalem and take a Davidic king captive. Even with the early mention of Amaziah’s faithfulness there is no mention of the LORD throughout the narration of his conflicts and as Brueggemann can correctly indicate, “Amaziah, heir of David, may be a prize example of Nathan’s verdict on the dynasty in 2 Samuel 12:10, “The sword will never depart from your house.” (Brueggemann, 2000, p. 446) Amaziah may have passed the theological perspective of 2 Kings but 2 Kings also narrates the events of an reign that is unsuccessful in conflict and ends with the king running for his life and ultimately killed by his own people.

2 Kings 14: 23-29

²³ In the fifteenth year of King Amaziah son of Joash of Judah, King Jeroboam son of Joash of Israel began to reign in Samaria; he reigned forty-one years. ²⁴ He did what was evil in the sight of the LORD; he did not depart from all the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat that he caused Israel to sin. ²⁵ He restored the border of Israel from Lebo-hamath as far as the Sea of the Arabah, according to the word of the LORD, the God of Israel, which he spoke by his servant Jonah son of Amittai, the prophet who was from Gath-hepher. ²⁶ For the LORD saw that the distress of Israel was very bitter; there was no one left, bond or free, and no one to help Israel. ²⁷ But the LORD had not said that he would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven, so he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam son of Joash.
²⁸ Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam and all that he did, and his might, how he fought, and how he recovered for Israel Damascus and Hamath, which had belonged to Judah, are they not written in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel? ²⁹ Jeroboam slept with his ancestors, the kings of Israel; his son Zechariah succeeded him.

In contrast to Amaziah of Judah, Jeroboam II of Samaria is a king who fails in the theological evaluation of the narrator of 2 Kings but succeeds militarily. Jeroboam II, like his unrelated namesake Jeroboam I (1 Kings 12) maintains the northern shrines in Dan and Bethel (the sin of Jeroboam) but the LORD the God of Israel sends word by the prophet Jonah son of Amittai which allows Jeroboam II to recapture the boundaries of Israel under David and Solomon.

Jeroboam’s military success which allows his recovery of territories lost to Aram takes place within the geopolitical events of the region. As Alex Israel states,

Jeroboam son of Joash of the northern kingdom takes full advantage of a regional power vacuum. Aram, Israel’s prime enemy of the past decades, has waned, while the Assyrian empire has yet to extend its reach westward. Jeroboam restores and expands the norther border beyond Damascus, to Hamath, establishing Israel’s hegemony to the border in place during King Solomon’s heyday. (Israel, 2019, p. 222)

From the theological perspective of 2 Kings, it is the LORD the God of Israel who is behind these movements as testified by the positive words of the prophet Jonah and the tangible success of Jeroboam. The LORD saw the distress of Israel and utilizes Jeroboam II as the means of deliverance in the view of 2 Kings.

It is also worth noting that there is another prophetic voice other than Jonah son of Amittai that speaks of the time of Jeroboam II. As the book of Amos records,

The words of Amos, who was among the shepherds of Tekoa, which he saw concerning Israel in the days of King Uzziah of Judah and in the days of King Jeroboam son of Joash of Israel, two years before the earthquake. Amos 1:1

Alex Israel correctly categorizes the witness of Amos when he states it, “depicts a society of wealth, complacency, and security, and yet it bears startling inequalities of income and outrageous exploitation of the poor by the rich.” (Israel, 2019, p. 222) Jeroboam II success may be due to the action of the LORD the God of Israel but that success does not mean that Jeroboam II will govern according to the intent of the law. We are entering the time where we have the words of the prophets written into the scriptures and this gives us a second witness about the time of these kings as the story of the Northern Kingdom nears its conclusion.

Reflections on The End of Men and the Rise of Women by Hannah Rosin

Leave a reply

There are some startling quotes in this book, but the one that stopped me in my tracks as we look at the future was this:

This script has played out once before in American culture. Starting in the 1970s, black men began leaving factory jobs; by 1987 only 20 percent of black men worked in manufacturing. The men who lived in the inner cities had a hard time making the switch to service jobs or getting the education needed to move into other sectors. (88)

There has been a lot of attention paid to the incarceration, unemployment, and the lack of young black men in raising children and the factors behind these men not being successful in society but when you expand the script to the plight of black men being predictive of the future of men as a whole that is bleak. I do believe that especially for men so much of their identity is tied to work and the loss of job opportunities for men without a college degree is a major factor in the failure of men in both the economy and life. Hannah Rosin’s book in 2012 was one the first one that I am aware of to notice the drastic changes occurring in the education and work space of America and she covers a wide range of impacts from the changes. From the changing dynamic of ‘hook-up culture’ in colleges, to the way the upper class still holds onto marriage as an economic advantage, the economic mobility of women and the economic stagnation of men, the drastic change in the makeup of college campuses, the increase in female violence, and the way women are breaking into the top of the job market.

I valued the combination of personal stories gained from interviews placed in the context of the seismic shift in the job and education market. As Hannah Rosin notes about the 2008-2009 Recession:

In the Great Recession, three-quarters of the 7.5 million jobs lost were lost by men. The worst-hit industries were overwhelmingly male, and deeply identified with macho: construction, manufacturing, high finance. (4)

I appreciated her candor in talking about the ‘hook-up culture’ on college campuses where women are also using it to avoid relationships which could derail their progression through college and into the workforce. Women are more educated and doing better economically in their late twenties than their male counterparts. Although college educated men and women were more likely to remain married and to ‘see-saw’ in their primary breadwinning roles, among men with only a high-school diploma the change was drastic. “In 1967, 97 percent of American men with only a high school diploma were working; in 2010, just 76 percent were.” (86) It has been common to note that this generation is not doing as well as the previous generation, but particularly for men:

In 2009, men brought home $48,000 on average, roughly the same as they did in 1969 after adjusting for inflation. In fact, as a recent report written by former White House economist Michael Greenstone discovered, the truth is even more dismal. Calling it stagnation fails to take into account the fact that fewer men are working full-time now or making any salary at all, and many more are incarcerated. If you add in those factors, the median income for men ages twenty-five to sixty-four has not only stagnated, but fallen sharply by almost $13,000 since 1969—a reduction of 28 percent. (125)

There is beginning to be an awareness of the change in the makeup of college classes, now dominated by women, but Hannah Rosin was one of the early voices who noted the vastly larger number of female applicants to college and the beginning of colleges attempting to balance the classes by giving preferential treatment to attract enough men.

What Hannah Rosin does a good job of doing is narrating the change that has occurred in society and how women have adapted while many men have failed to adapt. This is a story that need to be told, but it is also an uncomfortable story that undercuts one of the narratives I hear frequently where men are still assumed to be the ones with political and economic power. I have heard voices that refuse to believe that men are struggling, particularly from women who blazed the trail for the current generation. As Rosin states,

The closer women get to real power, the more they cling to the idea that they are powerless. To rejoice about feminist victories these days counts as betrayal. (272)

Women have made a lot of progress in my lifetime and that should be celebrated and there are still places where progress continues to be needed. Yet, we can want our young women to be successful and reach out to young men who are struggling to find a foothold in the rapidly changing geography of the job and education marketplace.

Review of D-Day: June 6, 1944 by Stephen Ambrose

Leave a reply

Review of D-Day:June 6, 1944: The Climactic Battle of World War II by Stephen Ambrose (1994)

Stephen Ambrose’s phenomenal telling of D-Day accomplishes the daunting task of bringing together the first-person experiences of both allied and axis soldiers, placing the experiences together with the units and locations within the overall plan and execution of the D-Day invasion of Normandy. This is like a mosaic where the author takes a variety of perspectives on the invasion and places them together into a coherent picture which still conveys the chaos the soldiers often felt on the beaches. The first third of the book examines the preparations for the invasion. Stephen Ambrose is able to narrate the personalities and styles of both Eisenhower and Rommel who were the respective commanders on D-Day as well as the command structures they operated within. The D-Day invasion was involved a mammoth effort of logistics and construction to mount and the author walks the reader through the construction of the landing craft, the planning of the invasion and the disinformation campaigns designed to keep German forces away from the landing site, and the training of the soldiers, sailors, and coast guardsmen who would conduct the landing and axis construction and forces designated to repel the invasion. The preparation was critical, and it both made the invasion possible and saved lives, but the book demonstrates all the ways that the plans for the invasion could not account for the reality the soldiers on the beach or who were dropped behind the beach encountered. Moving from west to east he narrates the individual experiences of the battle beginning with the experiences of the 82^nd and 101^st Airborne Divisions in their night drop and ending with the British 6^th Airborne Division on the eastern edge of the battlefield. Particularly with the airborne landings and the 16^th and 116^th Regiments landing on Omaha beach, the author does an excellent job of portraying the chaotic environment that soldiers found themselves in. The battle in these spaces often relied on junior officers and non-commissioned officers rallying any soldiers they could gather and the training these soldiers received. The book does a good job of combining the epic scale of the invasion with the narrow experiences of the individuals who were a part of this. It was readable and comprehensive at the same time, and I greatly appreciate the dedication and devotion that went into this massive narration of one of the critical days of World War II.

Sign of the Rose

Searchings: Sacred and Secular

Author Archives: Neil

2 Kings 18 King Hezekiah and Sennacherib’s Threat to Jerusalem

2 Kings 18: 1-8

2 Kings 18: 9-12

2 Kings 18:13-37

Reflection of Of Boys and Men by Richard V. Reeves

2 Kings 17 The End of Samaria

2 Kings 17: 1-6 King Hoshea the Last King in Samaria and the End of the Northern Kingdom of Israel

2 Kings 17: 7-23 Theological Rationale for the Exile of Israel (Samaria)

2 Kings 17: 24-41 The Ressettlement of Samaria by Assyria

A Small Light in Winter- A Christmas Story

2 Kings 16 King Ahaz and the Syro-Ephraimite War

2 Kings 16

Review of Empire of the Dawn by Jay Kristoff

2 Kings 15 The Stability of Judah in Contrast to the Instability of Samaria

2 Kings 15: 1-7 King Azariah (Uzziah) of Judah

2 Kings 15: 8-12 The Brief Reign of Zechariah King of Israel and the End of the Jehu Dynasty

2 Kings 15: 13-31 A Tumultuous Period in Israel

2 Kings 15: 32-38 King Jothan of Judah

2 Kings 14 King Amaziah of Judah and King Jehoash and Jeroboam II of Israel

2 Kings 14: 1-22

2 Kings 14: 23-29

Reflections on The End of Men and the Rise of Women by Hannah Rosin

Review of D-Day: June 6, 1944 by Stephen Ambrose