Daily Old Testament and Early Christian Writings: 2 Chronicles 22-23 and Augustine's Treatise on Profit of Believing 25

2 Chronicles 22 – The citizens of Jerusalem make Jehoram’s youngest son the next king of Judah; here the name given for that son is Ahaziah. He was 22 when he began his reign, but reigned only one year. He also was bad—his mother was Athaliah, granddaughter of Omri and she encouraged him to do bad things.

Ahaziah joins with the Isareli king, Joram, son of Ahab, in his war against King Hazael of Aram at Ramoth-gilead. When Joram is wounded in the battle, Ahaziah goes to visit him.

When he is there, they both go out to meet Jehu, son Jehoshaphat and grandson of Nimshi “whom the Lord and had anointed to destroy the dynasty of Ahab” (22:7). Jehu had the support of the prophetic party represented by Elisha. He founds the fourth dynasty of Israel according to Asimov’s Guide to the Bible, 365. Jehu kills Joram (of Israel) but also Ahaziah.

        

When Athaliah, King Ahaziah’s mother, sees that her son is dead, she sets about “to destroy all the royal family of the house of Judah. But Jehosheba, Ahaziah’s sister, takes his infant son Joash, and steals him away from the rest of the king’s children, who were about to be killed (22:11).

This daughter—sister of Ahaziah and daughter of Jehoram—is the wife of the priest Jehoiada. They hide him while Athaliah rules over the land for six years.

2 Chronicles 23 – But in the seventh year, Jehoiada enters into pact with certain influential military commanders and together they go through Judah, gather the Levites and heads of families of Israel, and bring them to Jerusalem.  “They all gathered at the Temple of God, where they made a solemn pact with Joash, the young king. They agree that the time has come for him to reign. The Lord has promised that a descendant of David will be our king” (23:3).

They divide themselves up into guards to protect the young king. They use David’s spears that are stored in the temple and “set all the people as a guard for the king, everyone with weapon in hand, from the south side of the house to the north side of the house, around the altar and the house. Then he brought out the king’s son, put the crown on him, and gave him the covenant; they proclaimed him king, and Jehoiada and his sons anointed him; and they shouted, ‘Long live the king!’” (23:10-11)

When Athaliah hears all this, she runs to the temple and sees the whole scene. She “tore her clothes in despair and shouted, ‘Treason! Treason!’” (23:13)

Jehoiada brings out the army captains and tells them to take her out and that “anyone who tries to rescue her is to be put to the sword” (23:14). She cannot be killed in the temple, but she is brought to the entrance of the Horse Gate of the king’s house and put to death (23:15).

        

“Jehoiada made a covenant between himself and all the people and the king that they should be the Lord’s people” (23:16). Then the people go and tear down the house of Baal; they kill Mattan, the priest of Baal, in front of his altars. Jehoiada assigns care of the house of the Lord to the levitical priests organized by David. He stations gatekeepers to prevent anyone unclean from entering the temple and he takes the captains, nobles, governors and people to bring the king down from the temple to the king’s house and the throne. He is the 9^th king of the Davidic dynasty according to Asimov, 367.

Augustine’s Treatise on the Profit of Believing

25 - Wherefore it now remains to consider, in what manner we ought not to follow these, who profess that they will lead by reason. For how we may without fault follow those who bid us to believe, has been already said: but unto these who make promises of reason certain think that they come, not only without blame, but also with some praise: but it is not so.

For there are two (classes of) persons, praiseworthy in religion; one of those who have already found, whom also we must needs judge most blessed; another of those who are seeking with all earnestness and in the right way. The first, therefore, are already in very possession, the other on the way, yet on that way whereby they are most sure to arrive.

There are three other kinds of men altogether to be disapproved of and detested. One is of those who hold an opinion, that is, of those who think that they know what they know not. Another is of those who are indeed aware that they know not, but do not so seek as to be able to find. A third is of those who neither think that they know, nor wish to seek. There are also three things, as it were bordering upon one another, in the minds of men well worth distinguishing; understanding, belief, opinion. And, if these be considered by themselves, the first is always without fault, the second sometimes with fault, the third never without fault.

For the understanding of matters great, and honorable, and even divine, is most blessed. But the understanding of things unnecessary is no injury; but perhaps the learning was an injury, in that it took up the time of necessary matters. But on the matters themselves that are injurious, it is not the understanding, but the doing or suffering them, that is wretched. For not, in case any understand how an enemy may be slain without danger to himself, is he guilty from the mere understanding, not the wish; and, if the wish be absent, what can be called more innocent?

But belief is then worthy of blame, when either any thing is believed of God which is unworthy of Him, or any thing is over-easily believed of man. But in all other matters if any believe anything, provided he understand that he knows it not, there is no fault. For I believe that very wicked conspirators were formerly put to death by the virtue of Cicero; but this I not only know not, but also I know for certain that I can by no means know.

But opinion is on two accounts very base; in that both he who has persuaded himself that he already knows, cannot learn; provided only it may be learned; and in itself rashness is a sign of a mind not well disposed. For even if any suppose that he know what I said of Cicero, (although it be no hindrance to him from learning, in that the matter itself is incapable of being grasped by any knowledge;) yet, (in that he understands not that there is a great difference, whether any thing be grasped by sure reason of mind, which we call understanding, or whether for practical purposes it be entrusted to common fame or writing, for posterity to believe it,) he assuredly errs, and no error is without what is base.

What then we understand, we owe to reason; what we believe, to authority; what we have an opinion on, to error. But every one who understands also believes, and also every one who has an opinion believes; not every one who believes understands, no one who has an opinion understands. Therefore if these three things be referred unto the five kinds of [people], which we mentioned a little above; that is, two kinds to be approved, which we set first, and three that remain faulty; we find that the first kind, that of the blessed, believe the truth itself; but the second kind, that of such as are earnest after, and lovers of, the truth, believe authority. In which kinds, of the two, the act of belief is praiseworthy. But in the first of the faulty kinds, that is, of those who have an opinion that they know what they know not, there is an altogether faulty credulity. The other two kinds that are to be disapproved believe nothing, both they who seek the truth despairing of finding it, and they who seek it not at all. And this only in matters which pertain unto any system of teaching.

For in the other business of life, I am utterly ignorant by what means a man can believe nothing. Although in the case of those also they who say that in practical matters they follow probabilities, would seem rather to be unable to know than unable to believe. For who believes not what he approves? or how is what they follow probable, if it be not approved? Wherefore there may be two kinds of such as oppose the truth: one of those who assail knowledge alone, not faith; the other of those who condemn both: and yet again, I am ignorant whether these can be found in matters of human life. These things have been said, in order that we might understand, that, in retaining faith, even of those things which as yet we comprehend not, we are set free from the rashness of such as have an opinion. For they, who say that we are to believe nothing but what we know, are on their guard against that one name "opining," which must be confessed to be base and very wretched, but, if they consider carefully that there is a very great difference, whether one think that he knows, or moved by some authority believe that which he understands that he knows not, surely he will escape the charge of error, and inhumanity, and pride.

Daily Old Testament and Early Christian Writings: 2 Chronicles 19 and Augustine's Treatise on Profit of Believing 22

2 Chronicles 19 – When Jehoshaphat returns to his house, Jehu, son of Hanani, the seer, meets him and criticizes him for helping Ahab. “Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord?” (19:2)

He nevertheless tells him that some good is found in him for his having destroyed the sacred poles and set his heart on seeking God. He went out among the people and “brought them back to the Lord” (19:4). He appointed judges and told them, “let the fear of the Lord be upon you; take care what you do, for there is no perversion of justice with the Lord our God, or partiality, or taking of bribes” (19:7). Similarly, in Jerusalem, he appointed Levites and priests and heads of families to decide disputes. “Deal courageously, and may the Lord be with the good!” (19:11)

Augustine’s Treatise on the Profit of Believing

22 - But perhaps you seek to have some reason given you on this very point, such as may persuade you, that you ought not to be taught by reason before faith. Which may easily be done, if only you make yourself a fair hearer. But, in order that it may be done suitably, I wish you as it were to answer my questions; and, first, to tell me, why you, think that one ought not to believe. Because, you say, credulity, from which men are called credulous, in itself, seems to me to be a certain fault: otherwise we should not use to cast this as a term of reproach. For if a suspicious man is in fault, in that he suspects things not ascertained; how much more a credulous man, who herein differs from a suspicious man, that the one allows some doubt, the other none, in matters which he knows not.

OK, so these terms – credulous and suspicious – are terms we use in a kind of negative way, maybe especially credulous. That means you are believing things that most people would not because you have a weak reasoning powers or don’t expect “proof” of what is being said. Suspicious means you just suspect something isn’t accurate or right – you have doubts about something. Augustine knows his friend – as he himself – did not what either of these “tags” applied to them. But are there some things where faith – trust in something you cannot KNOW – might be the best approach?

In the meanwhile, I accept this opinion and distinction. But you know that we are not wont to call a person even curious without some reproach; but we call him studious even with praise. Curiosity is perhaps valued more among moderns. But studious is definitely a good adjective, especially when we’re young and in school. Wherefore observe, if you please, what seems to you to be the difference between these two. This surely, you answer, that, although both be led by great desire to know, yet the curious man seeks after things that no way pertain to him, but the studious man, on the contrary, seeks after what pertain to him. I’m not sure this applies to the way we use these terms today. Sometimes what we are expected to be “studious” of are the things others have set before us because they believe them to be important to us, but they are not the things we would have chosen – not the things we are really curious to learn. Or maybe this is what he is getting at.

But, because we deny not that a man's wife and children, and their health, pertain unto him; if any one, being settled abroad, were to be careful to ask all comers, how his wife and children are and fare, he is surely led by great desire to know, and yet we call not this man studious, who both exceedingly wishes to know, and that (in) matters which very greatly pertain unto him. Wherefore you now understand that the definition of a studious person falters in this point, that every studious person wishes to know what pertain to himself, and yet not every one, who makes this his business, is to be called studious; but he who with all earnestness seeks those things which pertain unto the liberal culture and adornment of the mind. So he is saying what I said above. Yet we rightly call him one who studies, especially if we add what he studies to hear. For we may call him even studious of his own (family) if he love only his own (family), we do not however, without some addition, think him worthy of the common name of the studious. But one who was desirous to hear how his family were I should not call studious of hearing, unless taking pleasure in the good report, he should wish to hear it again and again: but one who studied, even if only once.

Now return to the curious person, and tell me, if any one should be willing to listen to some tale, such as would no way profit him, that is, of matters that pertain not to him: and that not in an offensive way and frequently, but very seldom and with great moderation, either at a feast, or in some company, or meeting of any kind; would he seem to you curious? I think not: but at any rate he would certainly seem to have a care for that matter, to which he was willing to listen. Wherefore the definition of a curious person also must be corrected by the same rule as that of a studious person: Consider therefore whether the former statements also do not need to be corrected. For why should not both he, who at some time suspects something, be unworthy the name of a suspicious person; and he who at some time believes something, of a credulous person? Thus as there is very great difference between one who studies any matter, and the absolutely studious; and again between him who has a care and the curious; so is there between him who believes and the credulous.

We have to remember here that Augustine is really not meaning to go into the particulars of Christian doctrine, which I think I may have thought before I started reading it closely. He is interested in simply lifting up, examining and recommending the mental act of “believing” as something we all do and must do as human beings.

Daily Bible Reading: 2 Kings 10-11 and Luke 10

2 Kings 10 – Jehu sends letters to the people responsible for overseeing the 70 sons of Ahab (Jerusalem Bible notes 70 is the number indicating “entire” and that sons here means all males heirs, particularly the sons of Joram) asking them to select one of them as king and get ready to “fight for your master’s house” (10:3). But they all respond that if he could beat the two kings he has already beaten – Jehoram and Ahaziah -- there is not much chance they will prevail against him.  He tells them if they really want to cooperate with him, they will send him the heads of Ahab’s sons the next day.  They do it and send him the heads at Jezreel. Jehu heaps the heads at the gate into the city, assembles all the people and announces, “You are innocent. It was I who conspired against my master and killed him; but who struck down all these?. . .So Jehu kills all who were left of the house of Ahab in Jezreel, all his leaders, close friends, and priests; he leaves no survivor” (10:11). It’s like the Hatfields and McCoys here at this time. That must be why they cited Kings in the movie.

                 

Jehu goes to Samaria.  On his way there he meets relatives of King Ahaziah of Judah on their way to visit the “royal princes” (of the house of Ahab or Joram). Jehu kills all 42 of them. Then he meets Jehonadab, son of Rechab (an ardent Yahwist). Jehu asks him to show his loyalty by coming with him to “see [his] zeal for the Lord” (10:16). They go into Samaria where Jehu kills “all who were left to Ahab. . .” (10:17).

He calls together the people and says Ahab offered Baal only small service compared to what he will do.  He calls together all the prophets of Baal, all his worshipers and priests on the pretext that he has a great sacrifice to offer to Baal. When they are all together in the temple of Baal, and Jehu has assured himself that no worshiper of Yahweh is in with them, he orders them all killed.  Afterward, they throw out the pillar that was in the temple and burn it and then make the temple itself into a latrine.  “Thus Jehu wiped out Baal from Israel” (10:28). He does not do away with the calves, however, that Jeroboam set up in Bethel and Dan.  The Lord praises Jehu for doing well in getting rid of Ahab’s house, so he rewards him with a promise of four generations of kings in his line.

                 

One of the problems Israel has during these days was the trimming off of certain parts of the country.  Hazael of Aram picks off Gilead, the Gadites, the Reubenites and the Manassites (all east of the Jordan). After Jehu (842-815 BC), his son Jehoahaz succeeds.

2 Kings 11 – Athaliah, Ahaziah’s mother, intends to slaughter all the royal family (why??); but Jehosheba, Joram’s daughter and Ahaziah’s sister—also wife of the chief priest Jehoiada—takes Ahaziah’s baby son, Joash (or Jehoash) and hides him away in the temple. Athaliah rules over the people for six years (843-837). In the 7^th year, Jehoiada summons the captains of the Carites (mercenaries from Asia Minor, the cherithites of David’s guard—1 K 1:38) and the guards and brought them to the king’s son.  He has a plan to protect the young king, using the shifting of the guards that occurs on the sabbath (JB says that on weekdays 2/3rds of the guard is on duty at the palace and on sabbaths 2/3rds are at the temple). He gives them spears and shields that belonged to King David, and when the day comes, he brings forth the boy and crowns him with the protection of the guard (11:12).

                 

When Athaliah sees it, she tears her clothes and cries treason, but Jehoiada has her killed when she leaves the temple.  Jehoiada makes a covenant between the Lord and the king and people “that they should be the Lord’s people” (11:17). They all go to the house of Baal and tear it down [the one in Judah] The priest of Baal, Mattan, is killed. The king is escorted to his palace and the people rejoice (JB says it is mostly the people of the countryside who are behind this renewal. The people of the city are compelled to accept it). Joash is seven years old.

Luke 10:1-24 – Jesus appoints 70 (other accounts say 72) disciples to go out, telling them “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few” (10:2). He sends them out like “lambs into the midst of wolves” (10:3).  They are to do what he has done—cure the sick and say “The kingdom of God has come near to you” (10:9). If people do not want to hear, they should wipe the dust from their feet “in protest” and Jesus then in a rather harsh tone that sets Luke apart from the other gospels, tells them a judgment hangs over towns that refuse to receive them (10:12): “I assure you that on the Judgment Day God will show more mercy to Sodom than to that town!” (10:12).

                 

When the 72 return, they are full of joy.  Presumably they have met with great success. “Lord, in our name even the demons submit to us!” (10:17) The word they bring has great power, especially over evil.  Jesus says, “I watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning” (10:18) I never really heard this sentence before this reading.  This statement places Jesus with God before the creation of the world according to the Jewish story about the fall of Lucifer. The statement about giving them power to “tread on snakes and scorpions” also brings back the addendum to Mark (16:18), which seems to us moderns so “beneath” the text in a way—that his disciples will “pick up snakes in their hands,” and so on.  But Jesus is simply trying to say that the spiritual power he has bestowed upon them will give them amazing power.  But the power on earth they will have is nothing compared to the fact that their “names are written in heaven” (10:20).

                 

Jesus also adds a word of thanks to his Father that he has seen fit to give knowledge of Him to “infants,” to the simple ones of the earth. “All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, or who the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (10:22). This sounds pretty much like the Jesus we meet in John.

                 

Then Jesus says, “Blessed are the eyes that see what you see! For I tell you that many prophets and kings desired to see what you see, but did not see it, and to hear what you hear, but did not hear it” (10:23-24). All of these passages have great “claims” embedded in them—claims to pre-existence, to power over evil, to participation of the Son in the Father’s being, to fulfillment of ancient prophecies and promises.  How can theologians claim the gospels make no claim to divinity for Jesus??

                 

Luke 10:25-42 - A lawyer in the crowd asks Jesus the same question the man in Mark 10:17 did—“What must I do to inherit eternal life?” (10:25) But instead of telling him he must give up everything, Jesus simply affirms the answer he gives, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself” (10:27). The challenge comes not in pushing self-denial to the point of giving up all possessions, but in realizing that one’s neighbor may include people one has not been taught to love—here the Samaritans. 

The lawyer pushes Jesus by asking him “And who is my neighbor?” (10:29) The parable of the Good Samaritan follows: A man going from Jerusalem to Jericho (a steep road descends 17 miles, providing many opportunities for brigands) falls into the hands of robbers, who beat him and leave him on the road half-dead.  A priest passes by him without doing anything to help him and then a Levite.  Finally a Samaritan comes by and is “moved with pity” (10:33). He helps bandage the man, brings him to an inn and pays the innkeeper to take care of him.  When Jesus asks the lawyer which one of the people in the story was a neighbor to the man, he rightfully answers the “one who showed him mercy” (10:37). Jesus tells him to go and “do likewise.” Again, we see the focus change here from the “ontic” concerns of Mark (concern for the state or spiritual condition of the believer—ascetic, self-denying) to the more practical, service-oriented model of redemption Luke is encouraging.

                 

There follows the story of Mary and Martha, a story not in Mark at all. Mary is the listener in the story, the one who sits at Jesus’ feet and attends to his words.  Martha is the worker, the one who waits on him, gets the food.  When Martha complains that her sister has left her to do all the work, Jesus tells her she is “worried and distracted by many things; there is need of only one thing.” (v. 41-42) Mary has “chosen the better part,” he says. This contradicts somewhat what I have said about the “doing” focus of Luke’s gospel, so he is not telling us to only do.  We must put Jesus first and what he teaches us when we attend to him with our whole selves.