Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
So we were talking last time about the Deuteronomistic historian and their interpretation of the
events that befell Israel, a very special interpretation that would make it possible
for Israel to remain intact after the destruction of the state, the temple and the national
basis of their society. And according to the Deuteronomist, it's the sin of idolatry, specifically
the sin of idolatry and particularly the idolatry of the king, for which the nation is punished
with exile and destruction. Punishments come for other sorts of sins, but the national
punishment of exile and destruction follows upon the idolatry and particularly the idolatry
of the king. So in the book of 2 Kings, a king who permits
sacrifice only at the Jerusalem Temple is praised no matter what other faults he may
or may not have, and one who does not is condemned, no matter what other accomplishments he may
have to his credit. Now the Deuteronomistic historian is aware that the historical record
doesn't lend itself very easily to this kind of interpretation. Because there are some
good kings who reigned very briefly, and there are some very bad kings, on their view, who
reigned for a very long time. Manasseh is a case in point. He reigned for over 50 years
and is viewed as the most wicked of all kings. Sometimes disaster would strike right after
the rule of a king that the Deuteronomist would view as a good king because of their
faithfulness to Yahweh, and sometimes it would not strike after the rule of a king that was
viewed to be very wicked. So the Deuteronomist sounds the theme of delayed punishment-- delayed
punishment, deferred punishment. So for example, Solomon's misdeeds in allowing
the building of altars for the worship of foreign gods to please his many wives, his
foreign wives, is blamed for the division of the kingdoms, but the punishment was deferred
until after his death and the time of his sons, and then you have this split between
north and south with Jeroboam and Rehoboam reigning, respectively, in the north and south.
The Deuteronomist sees Israel's defeat at the hands of the Assyrians in 722 [BCE] as
deferred or delayed punishment for the sins of Jeroboam I. Jeroboam I, 922 [BCE] or so,
came to the throne and installed two cultic centers at Dan and Beth-El, erecting golden
calves. This is seen as a sin, for which the nation was punished 200 years later.
As for the southern kingdom of Judah: you had some good kings in the view of the Deuteronomist
in the south. Hezekiah--he's judged to be a good king; he instituted sweeping reforms
and got rid of idolatrous altars and managed to maintain Judah's independence against the
Assyrians. But his son Manasseh, who reigned for a large part of the seventh century, is
viewed as extraordinarily wicked. He turned the Jerusalem temple into a pagan temple,
and it was a time of great misery for those who were loyal to Yahweh, a time of great
terror. And yet, he reigned a long time. His eight-year-old grandson, Josiah, came
to the throne upon his death, sometime, probably, in the 630s. And the Deuteronomist views Josiah
as a good king. We've already heard about, or read the story which is reported in 2 Kings
22, of the refurbishing of the temple, which happens when he's about 25 or 26 years old;
[he] discovers the book of the law, reads it, and is distressed because its terms are
not being fulfilled. And so Josiah orders the abolition of outlying altars and pagan
cults. He brings all of the priests to Jerusalem and centralizes all worship there in Jerusalem.
So in the Deuteronomist's view, Josiah is believed to be a very good king for purging
the country of these idolatrous rites and centralizing worship. But the sin of Manasseh
was too great and it had to be punished. So a prophetess, a prophetess named Hulda, tells
Josiah that God plans to bring evil punishment on Judah for these sins, but it will be after
Josiah's lifetime as something of a mercy to him.