By the word of the LORD a man of God came from Judah to Bethel, as Jeroboam was standing by the altar to make an offering. He cried out against the altar by the word of the LORD : “O altar, altar! This is what the LORD says: ‘A son named Josiah will be born to the house of David. On you he will sacrifice the priests of the high places who now make offerings here, and human bones will be burned on you.’ ” That same day the man of God gave a sign: “This is the sign the LORD has declared: The altar will be split apart and the ashes on it will be poured out.”

1 Kings is a funny book really – it seems such a mishmash of different bits. First we start with solomon and building the temple. Then when he kick the bucket theres a whole lot of “Blah was king of Israel/Judah – he was really bad, really really bad, worse that Thingy even. He reigned for 4 years and then he was killed by dodah. And we’re not going to tell you what he did because that’s in a different book.” Then suddenly Elijah pops up without much in the way of introduction and we here a bit about him. Then before you know it he’s looking for a replacement.

I did enjoy the bit of maths in 1 Kings 11 . Apparently, 10+1 = 12. So it turns out that the tribe of Benjamin is so insignificant that they don’t count, but that when lumped in with Judah, the one tribe, they don’t make it worth pretending there are two tribes.

So about “the man of God from Judah”… I found this passage pretty intreging. Why doesn’t “the man of God from Judah” ever get named? Loads of the other minor bit part prophets do, why not this one? Why does God punish him so severely, whilst the other prophet who lied doesn’t get punished? And why doesn’t the lion eat him?

Before I speculate too wildly on the first question. I’ll refer to Adam Clarke’s Commentary. This commentary seems to deal quite well with the questions I posed. So what does Adam Clarke say? “but conjecture is idle on such a subject”. Oh well! David Guzik’s Commentary on this passage notes that “that one does not need to be famous to be significantly used by God”. I kind of thought that perhaps we didn’t know his name becuase those in Isreal didn’t know who he was, since he was from Judah. And he never made it back to Judah to recount his side of the story. So it was probably just reported by someone in Isreal who only knew “he was a man of God from Judah”.

On to the second question. I’d kind of thought that perhaps he should have know that God doesn’t change his mind and that the other prophet was lying. I’d wondered about the whole Abraham/Isaac thing where God does give a new direction – Adam Clarke was once again helpful, and I’m going to make you read it for yourself rather than quoting it. Why God punished the “man of God from Judah” and not the old prophet from Isreal – I can’t really say. Perhaps it is as Guzik notes “often God begins strict judgment among His own people (1 Peter 4:17)“. I thought James 3:1 might be a better verse to refer to?

Why doesn’t the lion eat him? I think the lion wasn’t hungry! He just killed the bloke because God told/caused him to. I’m sure he would have eaten him if he was peckish – but he wasn’t! But yet again I speculate!

The Photo

A man of God from Oxford who I know!

50mm -exposure details probably don’t really matter! Intentionally extreme studio flash.

Now in those days the advice Ahithophel gave was like that of one who inquires of God. That was how both David and Absalom regarded all of Ahithophel’s advice.

When Ahithophel saw that his advice had not been followed, he saddled his donkey and set out for his house in his hometown. He put his house in order and then hanged himself. So he died and was buried in his father’s tomb.

Like 1 Samuel, I knew it was going to be hard to get into 2 Samuel. But 2 Samuel is a little easier for this study as it has loads little characters dotted throughout. Reading it gets a bit confusing, because you’re always wondering if you’ve met the character before or whether they’re a new bloke by the same, or similar, name. Lots of names to remember.

The bit about Uriah/Bathsheba/David is well known, but today it struck me that it was suprising that the head of the army Joab, knew who Uriah the Hittite was in and army of thousands without much of a problem. Or that he wasn’t curious as why the king wanted to see that particular man. I think its probably the first time that I’ve noticed that Uriah was one of the mighty 30 warriors listed towards the end of the book. So I Joab knew him because he was pretty famous, and David could potential ask to speak to him as someone who does good in the army. When now I know.

Today I picked on Ahithophel, another bloke with a bit part. So David and Absalom regard his advice as so good it must come from the Lord. Yet when David and Absalom has a problem with each other, and Absalom doesn’t follow Ahithophel’s advice, the latter goes and commits suicide. I thought that was interesting. And cue speculation… Why was he so upset about the lack of advice following? Perhaps he realised that David would win in the end and feared David would seek revenge on him for siding with Absalom. Obviously to take his own life he would have to fear that David’s revenge would go further than just he himself, perhaps to his extend family. However, I rather suspect that it was an issue of pride, and that he was taking it all very personally. Of course, if he was speaking God’s word into the situation, it wasn’t really him or his advice that was being rejected. I guess it is all to easy to take pride in the things God does through you, as if you did them on your own. Something we need to watch out for! Don’t take it personally – let God deal with it.

The Photo

The photo represents what is probably bad advice – not that Ahithophel’s advice was bad – it’s just something that sprung to mind when thinking about advice.

50mm @ f1.8 1/50s ISO 200

A certain man in Maon, who had property there at Carmel, was very wealthy. He had a thousand goats and three thousand sheep, which he was shearing in Carmel. His name was Nabal and his wife’s name was Abigail. She was an intelligent and beautiful woman, but her husband, a Calebite, was surly and mean in his dealings.

I’ve studied 1 Samuel a few times, and to be honest I didn’t really look forward to reading it again as I didn’t think there would be much to surprise me. And I wasn’t too far wrong. The only bit which really stuck out for me isn’t the main bit I’m going to look at, because I didn’t really want to write about the main characters. That bit was 1 samuel 14:24-45 in which Saul has put a curse on anyone who eats before sunset while they battle the Philistines. Jonathan, Saul’s son, has a bit of honey. When God appears to desert the Isrealites they cast lots to see who has sinned with the guity party to be killed. Saul even says “As surely as the LORD who rescues Israel lives, even if it lies with my son Jonathan, he must die.” Jonathan is found to be guilty but is spared by Saul. I found this interesting because of the contrast with Jephthah.

I chose Abigail for today’e entry, just because I’m a romantic really. The description of her reminds me of my wife (intelligent and beautiful). Hopefully the description of Nabal doesn’t remind her of me! Elkanah and Hannah came in close runners up. I wonder whyDavid chose to marry Abigail (to add to his two other wives, so far…). I wonder if he felt bad that her husband had died as God avenged the wrongdoing Nabal had done to David. Or was it because Abigail had shown such wisdom and David thought he could use a smart wife. Or was it the quality food she brought them? (after all the way to a man’s heart is through his stomach, or should that be his ribcage?) Or perhaps it was just because she was “fit”. Whilst I want to imagine that they fell deeply in love immediately, I really don’t think they would have done. I guess marrying David was a pretty good option for a widow. Abigail probably saw it as the sensible thing to do. It’s not the most romantic of situations is it? And being wife of the future king who’s on the run from the current king isn’t all easy of course. So let me summarise by saying I’m happy to married to a good looking, intelligent woman, who knows how to make flapjack.

The Photo

My lovely, intelligent and beautiful wife.

44mm @ f29 1/250s + studio lights, softboxes and SB800. ISO 800 (oops left that setting from the party I was shooting this evening). Too lazy to get out the backdrop I have so made do with the curtains.

But Naomi said, “Return home, my daughters. Why would you come with me? Am I going to have any more sons, who could become your husbands? Return home, my daughters; I am too old to have another husband. Even if I thought there was still hope for me—even if I had a husband tonight and then gave birth to sons- would you wait until they grew up? Would you remain unmarried for them? No, my daughters. It is more bitter for me than for you, because the LORD’s hand has gone out against me!” At this they wept again. Then Orpah kissed her mother-in-law good-by, but Ruth clung to her.

Since I’m such a romantic at heart I’ve always been very fond of this little book in the bible. I love it when people get married – even when I’m not their wedding photographer! I guess I should have considered this book yesterday (14th Feb). It would have made the photo straight forward, and I might even have had an excuse to get my wife some flowers that way. (She says she doesn’t like me buying flowers because they die and are a waste of money!) Alas, I only realised having ploughed all the way through Judges first.

Of course picking Ruth herself would have been too obvious for me. So I’ll go with the bit part – Orpah. I guess it’s not quite as small as the bit parts of Elimelech, Mahlon and Kilion. As has become my style over the last week, I’ll cosider other bits first before woffling about the main character.

Ruth’s not a very long book, so it’s pretty easy to read it all. In chapter 3 is a bit about uncovering feet. I thought I’d do a quick web search to find out the meaning of this. I’m it is something to do with the way search engines work that most of the early links are all about how feet is a euphemism and that Ruth and Boaz got down to business there and then on the threshing floor. The search also revealed fair amount of feminist writing linked to the passage too. Finally I found the alternative ultra-conservative view of the passage that the is nothing inappropiate whatsoever going on. I’m inclined to take the middle ground, and believe that the implication was there, but that Boaz did the honourable thing. There’s fairly good bit about it in Anita Cleverly’s sermon on this chapter.

There’s not a lot I can say about Orpah give the passge, but I’m always happy to speculate a little when it’s not really going to lead to a major hereasy. I don’t think she did the wrong thing particularly, just a different thing. I wonder what happened to her afterwards. I imagine nothing special but nothing terrible. The author of Ruth doesn’t pass judgement on her, which I’m sure they would have done if bad things had happened to her and they had heard about them. Some jewish writing isn’t so positive. Whatever happened to her, I think she probably missed out big-time. I figure that she is named first in the passage, as was probably therefore married to the older son. I guess that means should would be first in line for redeeming by her kinsman back in Israel, and we’d be reading the book of Orpah instead. A case of “here’s what you could have won“.

The photo

I’m not really one for gambling, but this idea for a photo stuck in my head. We didn’t win!

56mm @ f221/250s Studio strobe 400w/s with snoot + a bit of post-processing contrast adjustment.

And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD : “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.”

So I read the above sentence and immediately thought “oh no!”. But before I rant about Jephthah, I’ll have a little natter about the other bit in Judges that caught my eye.

I liked Caleb’s bit part. It’s such a random little extra bit which seems to have no impact on the rest of the book. Obviously someone at the time thought it was significant, but failed to tell us why. Random.

The tent peg massacre was interesting. I could just imagine that going oh so wrong: “Sisera then awoke, as the tent collapsed”. Surely she had a kitchen knife or something a bit less guesome than a tent peg? I guess it was a case of plausible deniability in case he woke up… “No, I’m not about to cave in your head, I’ve got some tents to put up…”

At sunday school Gideon is the superhero of all kids, along with David (vs Goliath), except we can believe that we are Gideon because he is small and scared and owns a fleece. But he ain’t all good. There’s a bit of me that is glad about that. But I shouldn’t be.

Anyway back to Jephthah. Why?!? Why would he vow that? Why? What did he expect? ( Wonders if he was looking for a way out of a bad marriage, or whether he didn’t like the pet cat ) But why? The photo above represent the greating I tend to get when I get home. My little girl (age 14 months) knows I’ll be coming in that door. And she looks out for me. I love it! Surely Jephthah should have known the first thing out of the house to meet him would be a person, and probably his only child or his wife.

What I don’t get is why he seems so surprised. Perhaps he didn’t expect he would defeat the Ammonites, and was said the vow out of desparation to save his own life. Then if he lost he wouldn’t have to go through with it. But in that instance I’d want to loose – I wouldn’t want to save my own life in exchange for my daughter’s. So bizarre. Can’t understand that.

Perhaps he kind of hoped it would be the Abraham/Isaac thing, and was desparately looking around for a ram in a bushes? But God was testing Abraham – this guy just made a foolish vow. Now he may have hoped the ram thing would have happened but he can’t have been thinking/expecting that when he made the vow.

I don’t get it. Why would he make that vow? I can only think that he wasn’t really thinking. I pray that God protects me from ever making foolish promises – particularly concerning my daughter.

The photo

This is the sight that greets me when I get home, normally minus the off-camera SB800 strobe.

31mm @ f4.0 1/15s – SB800 ttl mode off-camera

Then Joshua son of Nun secretly sent two spies from Shittim. “Go, look over the land,” he said, “especially Jericho.” So they went and entered the house of a prostitute named Rahab and stayed there. The king of Jericho was told, “Look! Some of the Israelites have come here tonight to spy out the land.” So the king of Jericho sent this message to Rahab: “Bring out the men who came to you and entered your house, because they have come to spy out the whole land.” But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them. She said, “Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they had come from. At dusk, when it was time to close the city gate, the men left. I don’t know which way they went. Go after them quickly. You may catch up with them.” (But she had taken them up to the roof and hidden them under the stalks of flax she had laid out on the roof.)

Rahab seemed a pretty obvious candiate for a discussion and photo, but before we consider her lets look at the other nomination…

I was rather amused by the Israelite inability to count dead bodies. Remember these are the dead ones, that aren’t milling around and being difficult. Perhaps they weren’t entirely sure if Bruce son of unpronoucancablename was dead or not, because even when he was alive he wasn’t particularly … well… lively?

But the Israelites can’t really count as a character. I thought “The Commander of the Lord’s Army” seemed a pretty good chap and I’m sure I could have done a bit about him instead. I thought his answer to question about whose side he was on was interesting. Whilst he does indeed appear to work for the good of the Isrealites – I guess it is they that are on his side, rather than the other way around.

So back to Rahab. Time for a shock revealation? Rahab wasn’t a tart! Well, I don’t believe she was. The handy NIV footnote to the effect that prostitute might mean inn-keeper got me thinking about that. Let’s consider the situations and note a few of points:

1. A couple of well behaved Israelite spies wander over into Jericho – assuming they’re reasonably well undercover – where are they going to choose to stay? Probably the local b&b, not the brothel, afterall they’re well behaved. The men then go back and tell Joshua the situation and the promise they have made – they’re not going to own up to that if she’s a hooker – particularly if they were married.
2. The king of Jericho asks Rahab about the blokes, and then accepts her answer. Surely he’s not going to accept the answer of the local working-girl, and I’m sure he could fine some volunteers to help with the search in her house. But perhaps he would accept the answer of a well respected inn-keeper.
3. And to borrow a point I hadn’t thought of – She’s still in communication with the rest of her family, which would be unlikely if she’d dishonoured them.

So Rahab isn’t a tart!

Other interesting notes I found out is that Some Jewish scolars now hold that position too (of not thinking that she is a prostitute, not of being one themself!), but Rabbinical literature would hold that she was until the fall of Jericho at which point she became a good girl and married Joshua.

An alternative husband (not a second one, just that the Rabbis might have got it wrong) is Salmon (as Israelite, not a fish). And that she was the mother of Boaz, and an ancester of Jesus. How cool is that!?

The photo

Many thanks to my friend Jennie for volunteering for this photo. I’d like to make it absolutely clear that Jennie doesn’t work in any of the lines of business discussed here, and that she is a very nice girl.

And to the other friend that I asked (in jest) to be the model for today: See I wasn’t being rude about you at all!

SB800 of camera, shot through red plastic bucket (my daughters toy). 50mm @ f8.0 1/125s

Hear, O Israel. You are now about to cross the Jordan to go in and dispossess nations greater and stronger than you, with large cities that have walls up to the sky. The people are strong and tall—Anakites! You know about them and have heard it said: “Who can stand up against the Anakites?” But be assured today that the LORD your God is the one who goes across ahead of you like a devouring fire. He will destroy them; he will subdue them before you. And you will drive them out and annihilate them quickly, as the LORD has promised you.

Having got the the end of Deuteronomy I thought that I probably should have skipped the book entirely. There’s not really much in the way of narative and not many characters to look at. Most of the book is Moses reminding the people of the Law just before thy head over the Jordan into the promised land and he kicks the bucket. However, a couple of little passages had stood out. I particularly liked the law about newly married men and army service, but I figured that in the absence of men in military uniform turning up at my house, any easy to come by photo might not be entirely appropriate. So that left me the the Anakites, of which you have no doubt heard it said “Who can stand up against the Anakites?”

What stood out to me wasn’t so much that they were big and strong, but that the next bit of the passage goes on to say that they’re going to lose for two reasons; their wicknessed, and because of the promise God made to Abraham and sons. I wonder what God would have done to resolve the situation of the promise if the Anakites hadn’t been so wicked in the intevening years between Jacob and sons trip to Eygpt and the Israelites return? I guess He could have just asked the Anakites nicely to relocate, which they no doubt would have done, being not wicked. But they were wicked and deserved a Godly kicking.

God, via Moses, then goes to great length to point of the that the Israelites haven’t done anything to deserve it and they should remember that when they are 20-6 up at half-time. I can see that the point needed to be made – especially with God’s knowledge of future events and all that – but it did seem a little harsh on a people who have been wandering the desert for 40 years after there last major mistake.

The photo

I went a bit veggie tales here. An Anakite leek dominating some poor little potatoes.

SB800 off camera, TTL mode. 29mm @ f4 1/15s

Then Caleb silenced the people before Moses and said, “We should go up and take possession of the land, for we can certainly do it.”

Numbers is full of rather dense people. I think Balak excels himself in believing that God is going to change his mind depending on the mountain he and Balaam stand on. The most significant moment for the Isrealites isn’t really there stupidest, to be fair. Having sent out spies to check out the land which God has said he is going to give them, they decide that it’s a bit scary and they don’t want to play that game. To be fair to most of the Isrealites, all they are hearing from the spies is doom a gloom about how big and butch the chaps in that land are.

Today’s photo is a tribute the Caleb-the-spy. He struck me as a glass-half-full kind of person. I’m sure he’d seen the same scary natives but he choses to focus on the rewards for victory and says “We can do it”. Sadly he doesn’t attribute the “we can do it” part to God, because then I’d have more reason for having picked him as my subject for today. I think I chose him because he did stand out in the Book of Numbers as someone positively doing the right thing. Balaam does pretty well mostly, Aaron is a good chap, but gets it wrong a couple of times and even Moses messes up. Caleb is one of the two over-twenty-when-the-Isrealites-started-wandering to make it into the promised land. Joshua was the other one, but he gets “bigged up” in children’s bibles/songs etc. and I might get to talk about him later. So I picked the Caleb.

The really “duh” moment comes a bit later when having grumbled and been told by God that they’ve blown it, the Isrealites then decide to have a go at taking the land by force and get properly whooped. I wonder if God ever considered trying reverse-physcology on them to get them to do what he really wanted?

The photo

I wasn’t really thinking. I guess this should have been a glass half-full of milk. But I got myself a port instead, of which this is a half-full glass. I did try lighting it on a table, but decided the black material base would be easier for the effect I wanted. Note to self: Must clean the glass next time.

SB-800 strobe off camera, manual mode, 1/2 power with a cardboard&drinking straw snoot. 70mm @ f10 1/60s ISO 200

He is to cast lots for the two goats—one lot for the LORD and the other for the scapegoat. Aaron shall bring the goat whose lot falls to the LORD and sacrifice it for a sin offering. But the goat chosen by lot as the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the LORD to be used for making atonement by sending it into the desert as a scapegoat.

Within 3 days of doing this, I’ve gone from a named person to an animal. Sad isn’t it! Can an animal count as a character? I’m sure Balaam’s donkey can so why not a goat? Leviticus is pretty heavy reading. There is the odd incident where people do things wrong but nothing stood out to me like the goat did. The scapegoat is a pretty lucky fellow really – he narrowly avoids sacrifice and instead gets released. Not that I’m sure about how bad it is being released into the desert with all the sins of the Isrealite nation apon you when you are a goat. I’ve never been a goat.

My new testament theology understand of sacrifice largely revolve around the sin offering I guess. Done something unholy which must be punished? Solution: pick a perfect substitute and sacrifice that to God. And Jesus stepped up to be that perfect Lamb for all of us. So I don’t really get where the Day of Atonement fits in with that. Is Jesus taking the place of both goats? Or just the one that gets sacrified? If so, who’s the escape goat?

A quick Google later… (to A Mighty Fortress ) and a bit of Hebrews and I conclude… it doesn’t really matter. What matters is the Jesus’s sacrifice for our sins was necessary and is sufficient. God is gracious.

The photo

I finally found a goat in my village! Two in fact. They were very friendly and were happy to sign a model release.

38mm@ f4.2 1/200s

“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Exodus has a few obvious character candidate, but the passage that stood for me was the first mention of an eye for an eye etc in the bible. Surprisingly this was in the context of a pregnant woman. On first reading, and as a result of using the NIV, it sounds as if the woman’s husband can demand punishment as a result of serious injury to the unborn baby. However other translations, and the footnote in the NIV, refer to miscarriage so I guess the serious injury must relate the the pregnant woman, rather than her unborn. The “New Life Version” made it clearer in this instance. I think God still cares for the unborn, but I guess, pre-ultrasound, it is harder to assess whether injury is a result of the fight or otherwise.

Another thing that struck me is that there is no question of a man hitting a pregnant woman intentionally. There are a couple of chaps having a bust up in a bar, and she gets caught it the cross-fire as one has his face rearranged with a lump of wood. They really must have been going some! So next time you’re in a fight, please mind you don’t hurt any pregnant women.

The photo

Unfortunately I didn’t have any obviously pregnant women available for the photo, so I’ve had to make do with my wife’s stretch marks and deformed belly button left over from her pregnancy with our little girl. I think they’re rather pretty!

70mm @ f22 1/125s using studio flash + snoot

Update: Note that I said obviously pregnant. My wife was about 10 weeks pregnant at the time, with our son John. I couldn’t tell people when I wrote the post.