ToES Diary April 2018

If an Israelite in the reign of King Jehoiachin was walking at night through a rain/hail/sleet storm along a dark road strewn with various obstacles and quite a few dead bodies, should he consider himself unclean?

A little more information: after later discovering the existence of the dead bodies, the man could not remember coming into contact with anything that felt like a dead body or even clothing such a body may have been wearing.

The law of Moses is reasonably clear about the effects of touching a dead body.

• Numbers 5:2 commands that people unclean through contact with a dead body should be excluded from the camp in the wilderness along with lepers, etc.
• Numbers 9:6-10 says that people unclean due to contact with dead bodies at the proper time of Passover should keep the Passover one month later.
• Numbers 19:14-15 talks of how uncleanness applies after a death in a tent.
• Numbers 19:16 speaks of uncleanness in relation to one who touches a dead body, bone or grave in the open field.
• Numbers 19:17-19 tell what should be done to cleanse the unclean person.
• Numbers 19:20 says that if someone does not perform the cleansing, they remain unclean and must be cut off from the assembly.
• Numbers 19:21 includes the one who sprinkles the water on the unclean person (on the 3rd and 7th days) as being unclean themselves until evening after performing the sprinkling.
• Numbers 19:22 tells just that if the unclean person (presumably the one who touched the dead body originally) touches anything (or anyone) then that thing (or person) will be unclean until evening.  Likewise, anything that touches (or it touched by) that thing which has been infected by the uncleanness also becomes unclean until evening.
• Numbers 31:19 says that soldiers who had killed enemies or touched dead bodies must stay outside the camp for 7 days until they are clean, having purified themselves on the 3rd and 7th days.
• Haggai 2:12-13 reports the priests as confirming that uncleanness is catching in this way.

Enough facts.  Now for the opinions!

In our imaginary situation, what should the wanderer in darkness do?  He tripped over various things, but does not remember anything that seemed likely to be contact with a dead body.

Should he declare himself unclean and follow the instructions in Numbers 19?

Given that he only found out about the dead bodies being on the road the next day, what of the things and people he had touched in the meantime?  Were they infected by his possibly uncleanness?

And what of those who had touched the things or people he had touched?  What should be assumed about them?

If the uncleanness was untreated, the man would remain unclean.  What would God’s preference be?  Assume an uncleanness that may not be there or assume a cleanness that may not be real?

And just to make the problem two steps more excruciating: what if this person was a priest and had touched the high priest in the meantime?

Some readers replied with opinions, all agreeing that it would be best for the man to assume that he was unclean.

I don’t think that there is any easy answer.  Assuming that you were unclean in such a situation could easily end up with you always assuming you were unclean if you lived in a society where God was not worshipped carefully.  How would we go in our society if we had to worry about cleanliness in this way?  If we were honest, we would probably have to assume that we were unclean because of touching someone who was unclean or touching something or someone who had been touched by someone unclean.  The way in which uncleanness would spread would make it more likely that we were unclean than that we were not, but we wouldn’t know.

Haggai 2:14 says ‘Then Haggai answered and said, “So is it with this people, and with this nation before me, declares the Lord, and so with every work of their hands. And what they offer there is unclean.”‘

I suspect that once enough of the nation goes away from God, there is no way for a godly man to keep the commands about cleanliness in the letter.  Intent would be the best that could be done.

On that basis, I suspect it would be best to conclude that there was no uncleanness in this case – at least, no more than could easily be true every day while remaining completely ignorant of it.

In a nation that was trying to be holy, I would probably come to the opposite conclusion.

I have always had a question about the names Chaldea and Babylon, but I have never tried to tie down my uncertainties.  This time, I decided that I needed to know properly.

Just looking in Jeremiah (or at least mostly), some fascinating statistics emerge.

In the ESV, the word “Babylonian” does not occur in Jeremiah, Daniel or Zephaniah, and only 3 times in Ezekiel, all in chapter 23 (verses 15, 17 and 23).  The first and last of these help us to understand the distinction between Chaldea and Babylon:

•  Ezekiel 23:15 wearing belts on their waists, with flowing turbans on their heads, all of them having the appearance of officers, a likeness of Babylonians whose native land was Chaldea.
• Ezekiel 23:23 the Babylonians and all the Chaldeans, Pekod and Shoa and Koa, and all the Assyrians with them, desirable young men, governors and commanders all of them, officers and men of renown, all of them riding on horses.

These verses show us that Babylonians are a subset of Chaldeans.

Babylon occurs 171 times in 150 different verses in Jeremiah.  88 of these (in 84 verses) occur as part of the expression “king of Babylon”.

On a few occasions the words “Babylon” and “Chaldean” are both used together, often in the forms “the king of Babylon” and “the Chaldeans”.  For example:

•  Jeremiah 21:4 ‘Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel: Behold, I will turn back the weapons of war that are in your hands and with which you are fighting against the king of Babylon and against the Chaldeans who are besieging you outside the walls. And I will bring them together into the midst of this city.
• Jeremiah 22:25 and give you into the hand of those who seek your life, into the hand of those of whom you are afraid, even into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and into the hand of the Chaldeans.
• Jeremiah 25:12 Then after seventy years are completed, I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the Chaldeans, for their iniquity, declares the LORD, making the land an everlasting waste.
• Jeremiah 32:4 Zedekiah king of Judah shall not escape out of the hand of the Chaldeans, but shall surely be given into the hand of the king of Babylon, and shall speak with him face to face and see him eye to eye.
• Jeremiah 32:28 Therefore, thus says the LORD: Behold, I am giving this city into the hands of the Chaldeans and into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and he shall capture it.
• Jeremiah 38:18 But if you do not surrender to the officials of the king of Babylon, then this city shall be given into the hand of the Chaldeans, and they shall burn it with fire, and you shall not escape from their hand.”
• Jeremiah 40:9 Gedaliah the son of Ahikam, son of Shaphan, swore to them and their men, saying, “Do not be afraid to serve the Chaldeans. Dwell in the land and serve the king of Babylon, and it shall be well with you.

From these verses, you could reasonably conclude that Babylon is the city, the centre or capital of the realm, while the people in and around Babylon are Chaldeans.

Another couple of passages which can confirm this interpretation are:

• Jeremiah 50:8 “Flee from the midst of Babylon, and go out of the land of the Chaldeans, and be as male goats before the flock.”
• Ezekiel 12:13 (speaking of Zedekiah) And I will spread my net over him, and he shall be taken in my snare. And I will bring him to Babylon, the land of the Chaldeans, yet he shall not see it, and he shall die there.

Jeremiah concludes with three chapters of prophecies (Jeremiah 50-52) against Babylon followed by a quick summary of Babylon’s interactions with Judah.  These three chapters alone use the word “Babylon” 71 times in 63 verses.  There are also some verses that could question this conclusion because they refer to the “land of Babylon”:

•  Jeremiah 50:28 “A voice! They flee and escape from the land of Babylon, to declare in Zion the vengeance of the Lord our God, vengeance for his temple.
• Jeremiah 51:29  The land trembles and writhes in pain, for the Lord’s purposes against Babylon stand, to make the land of Babylon a desolation, without inhabitant.

However, some other verses in the same chapters may help to explain this, by emphasising that Babylon is a city, but a city that controls an entire land:

• Jeremiah 51:31 tell the king of Babylon that his city is taken on every side
• Jeremiah 51:47 punish the images of Babylon; her whole land shall be put to shame.

In summary, Nebuchadnezzar was king of Babylon and he was a Chaldean.

If I were king, I could express things in the same way by saying that I was king of Melbourne, and that I was an Australian – although my true citizenship is in heaven.

For the series Terror on Every Side! this makes me conclude that I should not speak of people as “Babylonian”, but rather as “Chaldean”.

Unfortunately, Volume 3 has already been published with “Babylonian” and “Babylonians” occurring about 15 times.  At least I have been able to change all of those uses in Volume 4…

Jeconiah reigned as king throughout a siege and it appears that the message reported in Jeremiah 22:24-30 was given to Jeremiah during that siege.

God’s condemnation of Jeconiah seems very definite for someone who reigned such a short time.  Presumably he had already shown what he was like or God knew that he wouldn’t change from what he was already.

In ToES Vol 4, Jeremiah delivers the message during the siege.

We are told that Jeconiah gave himself up to Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 24:12).  Did he do so because he believed the prophecy that he would be hurled into another land and decided that it was best to give in quickly?  Or did he just realise he had no hope of success in enduring a siege?  Was the city about to fall anyway?

Unfortunately, we don’t know.

The prophecy given in Jeremiah 22:24-30 named Jeconiah.  This was probably the most clear and targeted prophecy Jeremiah had received up to that time.  I assume that Jeremiah did not know how long it would take to be fulfilled, but he knew that (unless something changed due to repentance) Jeconiah would be taken into captivity with his mother.

Once again, I don’t know, but I guess that he expected the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple to happen at that time.

There are great similarities with our own situation now.  We know Jesus will return, but we don’t know when.  We know prophecies will be fulfilled, but we don’t always know the order and we don’t know of any time delays there may be.

How long did he expect Jeconiah to reign for?

Based on the prophecy in Jeremiah 22:30, I assume that Jeremiah expected Jeconiah to be the last king of Judah.

Should a prophet fight in the army of Israel?

Elisha was with the army of Israel when Jehoshaphat king of Judah, Jehoram king of Israel and the king of Edom went to attack Mesha the king of Moab (2 Kings 3:9-12).  We don’t know if he was there to fight or just sent by God to make sure that a prophet was available when he was needed.

In 2 Chronicles 28:9, Oded the prophet went out to meet the army of Pekah, king of Israel after they had defeated the army of Ahaz, king of Judah.  If he had to go out to meet them, then he was not with the army when the battle took place.

As a prophet, should Jeremiah have fought against Nebuchadnezzar?

It seems a ridiculous idea that he should announce God’s judgement as coming through Nebuchadnezzar and then fight to prevent it from happening.

That would be enough to convince me that he would not have fought against the besieging Chaldeans.

However, Jeremiah was also a priest, which raises the question: Should a priest fight in the army?

Priests were not allowed to make themselves unclean with the dead bodies of any but their closest relatives and the high priest could not make himself unclean for anyone.

As such, it seems a reasonable conclusion that priests should not fight in Israel’s army.

But there are a couple of situations that spring to mind which would raise questions about this:

1. When Israel made a golden calf, the Levites (which included those who would later be the priests) were told to go though the camp killing their relatives who were joining the idolatry.  God said that this behaviour had ordained them in his service (Exodus 32:29).
2. Phinehas killed a man of Israel and a Midianite woman when they behaved immorally and God said that this action had turned back God’s wrath and earned Phinehas a covenant of peace and a perpetual priesthood (Numbers 25:6-13).  I suppose it is possible that he could have killed them without touching the bodies or any of their clothes or blood, but even so, the rules about death in a tent said that everyone in the tent when the death occurred would be unclean Numbers 19:14).

These examples argue that if God’s work required a priest to kill, doing that work would be more important than keeping the basic rule about avoiding uncleanness due to contact with the dead.  Fighting for God’s holiness was a higher duty for priests than the basic rule of cleanliness.  Not only that, but the higher duty increased their holiness and closeness to God rather than reducing it.  This may help with an understanding of how Jesus could touch those who were unclean without becoming unclean himself.

One of the things I did for BibleTales.online today had nothing much to do with writing stories, but a while ago I wrote a money-back guarantee that might be important to some people.  This is now displayed on the website (www.BibleTales.online/money- back-guarantee).

When Jeconiah surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 24:12), 10,000 people were taken into captivity.  2 Kings 24:14-16 and Jeremiah 24:1 give the descriptions and categories:

• Jeconiah, his wives and his mother
• Jeconiah’s servants, officials and palace officials (probably eunuchs)
• Chief men of the land and all the officials
• All Jerusalem
• Mighty men of valour (7,000)
• Craftsmen and metal workers (1,000)

Since the numbered components add up to 8,000, and they do not include all the categories of people described, it seems likely that the 10,000 only includes men.  Women and children were probably additional making a total of something between 20,000 and 50,000.  There does not seem to have been large numbers of people killed.  It is possible that Daniel may have had a influence in that.

There is also another number reported in Jeremiah 52:8 which reports that 3,023 Judeans were taken away in the seventh years of Nebuchadnezzar.  These may well have been men from outside the city of Jerusalem, taken away before Jeconiah gave up.

Only the poorest men remained, a phrase repeated after the destruction of Jerusalem in 2 Kings 25:12 and Jeremiah 40:7 and 52:16.  After that destruction, some of the poorest were also taken into captivity (Jeremiah 52:15).