Spilled Beans

I am heartbroken as I watch the noble people of God who have strayed so far from their Lord that they have turned to other nations and wicked practices.  In the final chapters of 2 Kings, we watch their choices played out, and see a people taken captive, sent out from their land, and cast into exile.  They desired foreign nations’ so greatly, that God is merely allowing them the desires of their heart.  If only they had trusted the goodness and mercy of a God who years earlier led them out of captivity into a land of promise and hope.  One almost sees 2 Kings ending on a note of despair and lost.  Almost.

The beauty that we find in the final passage was almost lost on me.  I would have read it, found it odd in its placement, and brushed on by.  Haven’t four years of seminary taught me to pay attention in Scripture when reading passages that strike me as particularly odd?  Nope, I was ready to keep on plowing through my reading.  Praise the Lord for a perceptive, wise spouse whose one word written on the margin of our Bible opened my eyes.  “Hope!” it declares.

In chapter 25 of 2 Kings, the exile has happened.  Israel was scattered across Assyria, while much of Judah finds itself in the foreign nation of Babylon.  Thirty-seven years into the exile, a new king has taken over Babylon, King Evil-marodach (sounds like a nice guy).  King Evil-m finds a soft spot in his heart, and releases King Jehoiachin, former second-to-last king of Judah, who had turned himself over to imprisonment in Babylon.  King Evil-m “spoke kindly to him,” he gave him a seat among the other kings in Babylon, and King Jehoiachin dined with the King of Babylon every day, as long as he lived (25:27-30).

The passage gives us no context or reason for the Babylonian king’s actions.  What is King Evil-m’s motive?  What is his hope to gain from such kindness?  Or is this in fact not a story about Evil-m at all, but as the rest of our reading through Scripture has highlighted, a story in fact about the Lord and his actions?  Yep, that sounds like a winner.

In this passage we see the flame of the House of David has not been entirely snuffed out.  Goodness and mercy is being shown, even to a king of Judah who did what was wicked in the Lord’s sight.  The Davidic promise, remains intact, as God remains ever faithful to his own covenant.  The people of the Lord broke covenant; the kings of the Lord’s people broke covenant; the priests of the Lord broke covenant.  God remains faithful.  Thus, a light in the House of David shines on.  Hope remains.  And a few years down the road, we just may see the ultimate fulfillment of God’s promise for the establishment of David’s house, kingdom and throne forever.  “Hope!”

In 1 and 2 kings, twice we read about male temple prostitutes.  First, under Rehoboam they come onto the scene in Judah.  Then, over 300 years later, King Josiah takes the throne and does his very best to turn Judah around.  He rids the land of wicked, idolatrous practices.  Specifically, we are told in 2 Kings 23:7, “He broke down the houses of the male temple prostitutes that were in the house of the Lord, where the women did weaving for Asherah.”

I am curious to know insight into the practice taking place here.  Mosaic Law held temple prostitution as wicked.  In fact, though the Israelites were a people who came out of nations in which women were cultic actors, the Pentateuch has women removed from positions of religious leadership.  This is possibly to detach themselves from association with the activity of foreign nations, and put off any possible cause for accusation of women serving as temple prostitutes.  Thus, where they once ministered at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting (Ex. 38:8), in the Mosaic Law they were barely even considered members of the covenantal community.

Regardless, we know that Israel has been corrupted and turned to the practices of their neighbors.  My first question when I came across male temple prostitution in 1 Kings, was whether the stress on “male” prostitutes suggested that prior to this, there were female temple prostitutes in Israel, but that was more accepted?  This would make sense, as the Israelites were adopting more and more of the cultic practices of foreign nations, and many foreign deity worship practices included temple prostitution.  Were women as temple prostitutes an accepted practice in Israel as it slid further and further away from Yahwism?

My second question related to male temple prostitutes, is what their function served.  Was homosexuality rampant enough to house male prostitutes in the Temple for the male worshippers?  On the other hand, perhaps they were there for women worshippers.  If the second is so, did a slide away from Yahwism open the doors for women to have a place to worship and practice freely in the cultic religions of foreign gods?

My final question runs along the above line of thought.  In 2 Kings, the male prostitutes lived in the part of the temple where the women did weaving for Asherah.  Perhaps this suggests that the males were there to service these women.  If so, then the foreign religious practices not only appear to open a door for women to freely worship, but also present the notion of women possibly even serving in roles of leadership, ministering before the foreign deities.  No ancient culture that I have come across (and I admit I have not studied far and wide in this area) is a place of joy and empowerment for women.  Nevertheless, it could appear that at least in religious practices, non-Israelite peoples were somewhat more progressive for women than the Hebrews.  OR, female temple prostitution was simply accepted just fine – even for ‘righteous’ kings like Josiah – so only male temple prostitution needed to be cleared out.

In 1 Kings chapter 9, after Solomon has just completed building the Temple of the Lord, God appears to him.  He gives Solomon an oft-repeated Deuteronomistic warning/blessing that if he obeys and walks uprightly, all will go well with him, while if he turns aside to other gods, Israel will be cut off.  The Lord goes on to warn, “Israel will become a proverb and a taunt among all peoples.  This house will become a heap of ruins; everyone passing by it will be astonished, and will hiss; and they will say, ‘Why has the Lord done such a thing to this land and to this house?’  Then they will say, ‘Because they have forsaken the Lord their God, who brought their ancestors out of the land of Egypt, and embraced other gods, worshipping them and serving them; therefore the Lord has brought this disaster upon them’” (1 Kings 9:7-9).

I find the response of the other nations in this passage interesting.  Patriarch Abram was chosen by God to be the father of Israel, a people of God, in order that ‘all nations’ might be blessed through them.  Yet if Israel turns away, God does not hold the converse over their head – that their disobedience will be the ruin of all nations.  God promises that their disobedience will be their own downfall making them a stench among ‘all people.’  However the nations will still recognize the Lord and his actions in what he is doing and has done among Israel.  Ultimately, Israel’s disobedience will still prove God’s righteousness.

I am very unlearned in ancient history, but it seems to me that generally ancient peoples and societies were very religious.  (Would I be correct in assuming that?)  Did ancient peoples believe there were particular deity/ies for each people group/society/area/etc. to worship?  Or did each group believe the gods they worshipped were the correct and true gods for all peoples?  In this 1 Kings text we read that the Israelites turning away from God did not disprove his existence or his power to outside groups.  Israel’s transgression merely cast blame upon themselves for their own senselessness.  Their God’s existence, power, and deeds remained a given.

God did not choose the Israelites and bring them into a covenant in order to have a people through whom to prove himself.  He did so that they might follow and worship him and in living righteous lives, being a model to other nations, so all others might be blessed.  In this I reflect upon my situation.  My lack of faith and disobedience does not tarnish God’s reputation – it tarnishes my own.  God speaks for himself.