As I explained at the end of Part Two of this series, Leonard Jayawardena, whom I refer to as LJ for convenience, assumed throughout the third section of his article that he had correctly interpreted "the blood of Jezreel" to refer metaphorically not to the massacre that Jehu had committed at Jezreel but to "the blood of the children" of Israel killed by the Syrians during the reigns of the Jehu dynasty. In Part One and Part Two, I dismantled this claim entirely, so as I go through the third section of LJ's article, I won't have to rehash my rebuttals of his interpretation. In the interest of brevity, I will just link readers to the places where his spin on Hosea 1:4 was shown to be most likely incorrect. As I have been doing, I will quote his article in blue print so that readers will be able to follow more easily who is saying what.

"The blood of Jezreel" historically: During the period of the Jehu dynasty, the Syrians in particular harassed Israel.

Notice how the very subtitle of this section of LJ's article assumes that "the blood of Jezreel" referred not to the massacres that Jehu had committed at Jezreel but to the "blood" of the children of Israel killed by Syrian invasions that had presumably resulted from Yahweh's punishment of Israel for Jehu's toleration of the golden-calf shrines at Bethel and Dan. We know from having examined the first two sections of his article that LJ thinks that this was the meaning of the expression "the blood of Jezreel" in Hosea's prophecy, but isn't it rather odd that no biblical writer ever unequivocally used this expression in the sense that LJ has assigned it? If Hosea 1:4 had really meant what LJ has tried to make it mean, one would think that it would have been rather easy for Hosea to have said, "Thus says Yahweh, 'For having led the children of Israel into worshipping the golden calves, I will visit on the house of Jehu the blood of Jezreel.'" Since the Hebrew word pâqad did sometimes convey the idea of "visiting" in the sense of punishing with the same kind of tragedy that had befallen others, Hebrew readers would have understood that Hosea was saying that Yahweh intended to end the house of Jehu with a bloody massacre like the one that Jehu had inflicted on the royal family of Israel, and the wording would have left no doubt that Hosea was saying that Yahweh would do this to Jehu's descendants not because of the massacre committed at Jezreel but because the descendants of Jehu had been instrumental in maintaining worship of the golden calves in the northern kingdom. Unfortunately for LJ, however, Hosea did not word his prophecy in this way. As I showed in this section of Part One and again here in Part Two, Hosea's prophecy was structured in a way that will allow "the blood of Jezreel" to refer only to the first part of this double-faceted prophecy, and that first part was that Yahweh would, in a little while, avenge the blood of Jezreel on the house of Jehu. As I go through this part of LJ's article, I will say more to show that LJ's spin on the prophecy is dubious at best, but I have to say here that it has always seemed strange to me that an omniscient, omnipotent deity could not guide his chosen writers to express themselves clearly, and so "apologists" like Leonard Jayawardena are needed to explain what was really meant in passages that stir controversy. Invariably, to hear the "explanations" of these "apologists," the controversial passages never meant what they seem to be saying.

First, during the reign of Jehu, the Syrians under Hazael attacked Israel and annexed some territory in Transjordan (2 Kings 10:32-33).

Keep in mind that LJ's take on Hosea's prophecy is that Yahweh was going to punish the house of Jehu for having allowed the golden-calf worship, which had so angered Yahweh that he had sent the Syrians against Israel in attacks that had resulted in the killing of some of the children of Israel. In other words, LJ has swallowed hook, line, and sinker the ancient belief that national calamities were brought upon nations when they did something that displeased their gods, and so he is arguing that even though Yahweh had sent the Syrians against the Israelites to punish them for idolatrous worship, the blame for the attacks was the fault of the Jehu kings for having allowed the golden-calf worship to continue.

Such reasoning as this is as fallacious as if a father displeased with the unfaithfulness of his wife should hire hooligans to beat up their children and then claim that the beatings were the fault of his wife, because he had sent the hooligans to attack them because his wife had been unfaithful. There are several flaws in the line of primitive reasoning that attributed tragedies and calamities to angry gods, and I will be pointing out some of them as we go on through this section of LJ's article.

Elisha had earlier predicted the slaughter and destruction that Hazael would carry out in Israel when he became king (2 Kings 8:12-13). Note that it is not a coincidence that the writer of 2 Kings inserts the account of the conquests of Hazael in Israel immediately after 2 Kings 10:29-31, which records Jehu's idolatry. The scripture writers always saw idolatry as the downfall of both Judah and Israel, and reports of attacks by enemy nations often follow reports of the idolatry of the two nations. A clear link is made between the two.

Well, if this link was so "clear," we would expect to find consistency in the "scripture writers'" reports of these attacks, wouldn't we? In other words, if the writers reported that idolatrous worship allowed by king X was then followed by enemy victories over Israel, then we would expect the writers to report that the permission of idolatrous worship by kings Y and Z were also followed by enemy victories, but we don't find this kind of consistency in the biblical records. In LJ's example cited above, Jehu had allowed the golden-calf shrines at Bethel and Dan to remain in place, after which the size of Israel's territorial holdings were reduced though Syrian intrusions (2 Kings 10:32-33). Hence, to the primitive mind of the Kings writer, Yahweh had caused Syria's success in order to punish Israel for worshiping the golden calves, but the author of 2 Kings put an entirely different spin on the reign of Jehu's son Jehoahaz. Even though he too allowed the shrines at Bethel and Dan to remain in place, the author of 2 Kings claimed that Yahweh had caused Israel to prosper during his reign.

2 Kings 13:1 In the twenty-third year of Joash son of Ahaziah king of Judah, Jehoahaz son of Jehu became king of Israel in Samaria, and he reigned seventeen years. ² He did evil in the eyes of Yahweh by following the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, which he had caused Israel to commit, and he did not turn away from them. ³ So Yahweh's anger burned against Israel, and for a long time he kept them under the power of Hazael king of Aram and Ben-Hadad his son. ⁴ Then Jehoahaz sought the Lord's favor, and Yahweh listened to him, for he saw how severely the king of Aram was oppressing Israel. ⁵ Yahweh provided a deliverer for Israel, and they escaped from the power of Aram. So the Israelites lived in their own homes as they had before. ⁶ But they did not turn away from the sins of the house of Jeroboam, which he had caused Israel to commit; they continued in them. Also, the Asherah pole remained standing in Samaria.

LJ's position is that Jehu allowed the golden-calf shrines to remain in place, and so Yahweh punished Israel for this through Syrian invasions. Then after Jehu had died, his son Jehoahaz, who succeeded to the throne, also allowed the shrines to remain open for which Yahweh punished Israel by Syrian raids for a while and then he "provided a deliverer for Israel," who enabled them to escape from Syrian domination and live in their own homes as they had before, even though "they did not turn away from the sins of the house of Jeroboam." That is the kind of inconsistent silliness that LJ is trying to defend. Perhaps he would like to explain to us why Yahweh punished Israel for Jehu's toleration of the golden-calf shrines but then sent a "deliverer" to Israel during the reign of Jehu's son, even though he too was allowing the shrines to remain in place.

Sensible people, of course, will understand what we have here. During the normal course of events, nations will prosper and nations will decline. The gods have nothing to do with this. Whether the nation prospers or whether it declines will depend on various social, economic, military, climatic, and geographic conditions, but primitive minds were unable to view geopolitics in this way. They assumed that if the nation declined, it had done something to displease its god, and if the nation prospered, it had done things to please its gods. If the 2 Kings account of the reigns of Jehu and his son Jehoahaz accurately reported what had happened during their reigns, then Israel had lost power and influence during Jehu's reign because of geopolitical factors that the author didn't understand, and if it regained some of its power and influence during the reign of Jehu's son, this too had happened because of geopolitical conditions that the author didn't understand. To his primitive mind, the prosperity and decline were both due to Yahweh's pulling strings in accordance with whether he was pleased or displeased with the nation.

LJ referred above to the harassments of king Hazael of Syria throughout the reign of Jehu and attributed them to Jehu's toleration of the golden-calf shrines, but look at how the same writer interpreted Hazael's harassments during the reign of Jehu's son Jehoahaz.

2 Kings 13:22 Hazael king of Aram [Syria] oppressed Israel throughout the reign of Jehoahaz. ²³ But Yahweh was gracious to them and had compassion and showed concern for them because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. To this day he has been unwilling to destroy them or banish them from his presence. ²⁴ Hazael king of Aram died, and Ben-Hadad his son succeeded him as king. ²⁵ Then Jehoash son of Jehoahaz recaptured from Ben-Hadad son of Hazael the towns he had taken in battle from his father Jehoahaz. Three times Jehoash defeated him, and so he recovered the Israelite towns.

So even though Jehu's son Jehoahaz had also tolerated the golden-calf shrines, Yahweh had compassion on Israel, so it would seem that Yahweh is rather capricious. Sometimes he would bring calamity and military defeat upon Israel when its king allowed idolatry to be practiced, and sometimes he would bring success and military victory upon Israel even when its king was allowing pagan worship. In the text just quoted above, Jehoash recaptured the towns and territory that had previously been lost to Hazael. Jehoash was the son of Jehoahaz and therefore the grandson of Jehu. He too had allowed the golden-calf shrines to remain open during his reign.

2 Kings 13:9 Jehoahaz rested with his fathers and was buried in Samaria. And Jehoash his son succeeded him as king. ¹⁰ In the thirty-seventh year of Joash king of Judah, Jehoash son of Jehoahaz became king of Israel in Samaria, and he reigned sixteen years. ¹¹ He did evil in the eyes of Yahweh and did not turn away from any of the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, which he had caused Israel to commit; he continued in them. ¹² As for the other events of the reign of Jehoash, all he did and his achievements, including his war against Amaziah king of Judah, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Israel? ¹³ Jehoash rested with his fathers, and Jeroboam succeeded him on the throne. Jehoash was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel.

The inconsistencies continued, because Jehoash's successor son, Jeroboam II, experienced political and military successes even though he too allowed the golden-calf shrines to remain open

2 Kings 14:23 In the fifteenth year of Amaziah son of Joash king of Judah, Jeroboam son of Jehoash king of Israel became king in Samaria, and he reigned forty-one years. ²⁴ He did evil in the eyes of Yahweh and did not turn away from any of the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, which he had caused Israel to commit. ²⁵ He was the one who restored the boundaries of Israel from Lebo Hamath to the Sea of the Arabah, in accordance with the word of Yahweh, the God of Israel, spoken through his servant Jonah son of Amittai, the prophet from Gath Hepher. ²⁶ Yahweh had seen how bitterly everyone in Israel, whether slave or free, was suffering; there was no one to help them. ²⁷ And since Yahweh had not said he would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven, he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam son of Jehoash. ²⁸ As for the other events of Jeroboam's reign, all he did, and his military achievements, including how he recovered for Israel both Damascus and Hamath, Hamath, which had belonged to Yaudi, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Israel?

The writer of 2 Kings claimed that Jehu, Jehoahaz, Jehoash, and Jeroboam II had all tolerated pagan worship at the shrines of the golden calves, but Jehu was the only one of the four who had lost territory during his reign. The others had succeeded in recovering some of the territory that had been captured by king Hazael of Syria, and those successes were attributed to Yahweh's compassion and concern for Israel. LJ's theory, then, that "the blood of Jezreel" was just a metaphorical expression that represented the blood of the children of Israel who had died during Syrian invasions because of the Jehu dynasty's toleration of pagan worship is too inconsistent to be taken seriously. It is just another desperate attempt by a would-be apologist to explain away inconsistency in the biblical text.

After the death of Jehu, his son Jehoahaz reigned in his stead. According to 2 Kings 13:2-7, the Syrians had almost annihilated Israel's army during the reign of Jehoahaz:

[Jehoahaz] did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, and followed the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, which he made Israel to sin; he did not depart from them. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he gave them continually into the hand of Hazael king of Syria and into the hand of Ben-hadad the son of Hazael. Then Jehoahaz besought the Lord, and the Lord hearkened to him; for he saw the oppression of Israel, how the king of Syria oppressed Israel. (Therefore the Lord gave Israel a savior, so that they escaped from the hand of the Syrians; and the people of Israel dwelt in their homes as formerly. Nevertheless they did not depart from the sins of the house of Jeroboam, which he made Israel to sin, but walked in them...) For there was not left to Jehoahaz an army of more than fifty horsemen and ten chariots and ten thousand footmen; for the king of Syria had destroyed them and made them like the dust at threshing (RSV, emphasis added).

That, indeed, is the blood of Jezreel.

No, that is not "the blood of Jezreel"; it is simply a desperate attempt by a would-be apologist to explain away an obvious discrepancy in the Bible. LJ said not one word about the 180-degree turn that the writer made in this passage, which first referred to the "anger of the Lord" that had caused him to give "them [the Israelites] continually into the hand of Syria" but then went on to tell of the compassion that Yahweh had had for the Israelites, which then led him to send a "savior" to deliver them from "the hand of the Syrians," even though they "did not depart from the sins of the house of Jeroboam." LJ said not one word about the inconsistency in the way that the author of 2 kings viewed military defeats and victories during the reigns of the Jehu dynasty. If foreign oppression was a tool of punishment that Yahweh had indeed used against the Israelites during times of their toleration of idolatry, then why was this such an on-again, off-again Yahwistic policy? Wouldn't a deity who showed no favoritism (Deut. 10:17; Rom. 2:11) have been a bit more consistent in punishing Israel for official toleration of idolatry?

To understand this inconsistency of the author of 2 Kings, one must be realistic and understand what I previously explained in this section of Part Two. People in biblical times superstitiously believed that their gods sent upon them fortunes and misfortunes according to whether they had pleased the gods. Hence, when territory and cities were lost to Syria during the reign of Jehu, the writer attributed this to Yahweh's displeasure at Jehu's having tolerated worship at the golden-calf shrines, but when his son and grandson regained some of those territories, these successes were attributed to compassion that Yahweh had had on Israel even though its kings were still allowing the pagan shrines to function. If LJ understood how deeply engrained this superstition was in biblical times, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

We can now understand Hosea 1:4-5 as follows:

And the Lord said unto him [Hosea], Call his [the firstborn of Gomer] name Jezre-el; for yet a little a [sic] while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezre-el [the children of Israel] upon the house of Jehu [because they, as the chief patrons in Israel of the cult of calf-worship, are principally responsible for the people of Israel sinning against me by following this cult, which caused me to punish Israel by their enemies resulting in their blood being shed], and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel [by Assyria as a judgment because they are hopelessly wedded to their idols]. And it shall come to pass at that day, that I will break the bow of Israel [crush the military power] in the Valley of Jezreel.

I think that any person with reasonable critical-thinking skills will see immediately that most of the parenthetical comments in LJ's rewording of Hosea 1:4-5, are what he has read into the text to make it mean what he wants it to say. As I asked once before, I will ask again: Why couldn't Yahweh have inspired his chosen writers to say exactly what they meant to say? If the uninspired Leonard Jayawardena could rewrite the passage as clearly as he did above, why couldn't the prophet Hosea have written it just as clearly? Well, the answer to this question is obvious: He could have if that was what he had meant to say. The fact that he didn't write it that way should tell readers with reasonable critical-thinking skills that he didn't mean it to say that. A huge problem for LJ all through his article has been his inability to cite or quote a single passage of scripture where any biblical writer ever unequivocally used the expression "the blood of Jezreel" in the sense that LJ has been trying to twist it into meaning.

Hosea 12:14 supports the interpretation that the "blood" is indeed that of the children of Israel shed as a result of idolatry: "Ephraim provoked Him [God] to anger most bitterly [with their idols]: therefore shall He [God] leave his [Ephraim's] blood upon him [Ephraim], and his reproach shall his Lord return unto him." God had repeatedly sent Ephraim (synonym for Israel) prophets to call the nation from their idols and the moral degeneracy that accompanies it to the true God (12:10), but they did not respond and provoked God to anger "most bitterly" by their idols; therefore the bloodguilt for their demise would rest upon themselves alone (cf. Ezekiel 33:1-9). Hosea is here talking about the future divine punishment of Israel for their religious apostasy by Assyria (see 9:7-8,15-17; 10:4-8).

English is a second language for LJ, so we can certainly understand the reason for the misplaced modifier in his last sentence above. He was actually saying that Hosea was talking about the future divine punishment by Assyria for Israel's religious apostasy. With that understanding of what LJ probably meant, we can now examine the flaws in his interpretation of some of the verses in Hosea 12. I have no disagreement with LJ's interpretation of Ephraim as another name for Israel or the northern kingdom, because the name was so used in many places in the Old Testament, possibly because Jeroboam, the first of the northern kings, was an Ephraimite (1 Kings 11:26), and over time the Ephramites had become the most dominant of the 10 northern tribes.

In other matters pertaining to this chapter in Hosea, LJ and I part ways. For one thing, his claim that "moral degeneracy" accompanied the abandonment of Yahwistic worship is downright ludicrous in view of the many Old Testament references to massacres that were either commanded by or done by the Hebrew god Yahweh. He commanded the Israelites, for example, to destroy totally the seven nations residing in Canaan when the Israelites came out of Egypt (Deut. 7:1-2), and the book of Joshua purports to be a record of Israel's obedience to this command when entire Canaanite tribes, including their children and babies, were massacred (Josh. 10:40; 11:10-15; 12, et al). I have already referred to Yahweh's command for Saul, the first king of Israel, to destroy totally the Amalekites, including children and babies, for something that their ancestors had done 400 years earlier (1 Sam. 15:1-3). There are just too many Yahwistic atrocities in the Old Testament for me to cite them all, but if LJ thinks that such tales as these presented a higher standard of morality than was practiced by those who worshiped gods other than Yahweh, his concept of morality is somewhat lower than mine.

As for Hosea's concern in the passage that LJ quoted above, the broader context in chapters 11 through 13 do show that the prophet was deeply concerned about idolatrous practices in Israel, but chapter 11 addressed other problems besides idolatry. Hosea, for example, objected to Israelite trade and treaties with Assyria and Egypt (v:1) and was upset with merchants who had become rich by using false scales to cheat their customers (vs:7-8). For these and the offense of "sacrific[ing] to bull-gods in Gilgal" (v:11), Hosea envisioned dire punishments for the Israelites [Ephramites], but LJ grievously distorted the verse on which he based his claim that "the blood of Ephraim" meant the same thing as "the blood of Jezreel" in 1:4. That they didn't mean the same thing can be see by juxtaposing the two verses.

Hosea 1:4 Then Yahweh said to Hosea, "Call him [Gomer's first child] Jezreel, because I will soon punish the house of Jehu for the massacre at Jezreel, and I will put an end to the kingdom of Israel.

Hosea 12:14 Ephraim provoked him [Yahweh] to anger most bitterly: therefore shall he leave his blood upon him, and his reproach shall his Lord return unto him.

In the first verse, Yahweh was going to punish the house of Jehu for something that its eponymous ancestor [Jehu] had done; in the second, Yahweh would put upon Ephraim the guilt of its own bloodshed. In other words, the Ephraimites of Hosea's time would be punished for their own sins and not for the sins of their ancestors. This meaning of Hosea 12:14 is made clearer in modern translations.

NRSV: Ephraim has given bitter offense, so his Lord will bring his crimes down on him and pay him back for his insults.

NIV: But Ephraim has bitterly provoked him to anger; his Lord will leave upon him the guilt of his bloodshed and will repay him for his contempt.

REB: Ephraim gave bitter provocation; he will be left to suffer for the blood he has shed; his Lord will punish him for all his blasphemy.

There is a clear difference in the way that Hosea used the two terms. The one claimed that the house of Jehu would receive vicarious punishment for Jehu's actions at Jezreel; the other claimed that Ephraim [Israel] would receive punishment for its own offenses. LJ may counter that I am now assuming that "the blood of Jezreel" was making reference to Jehu's massacres at Jezreel, and I certainly do think that this is the most plausible interpretation of the expression, but for the sake of argument, let's assume that it meant what LJ is claiming, i. e., the descendants of Jehu living in Hosea's time would be exterminated because of all of the children of Israel whose blood was shed by the Syrians during the reigns of Jehu, Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Jeroboam II, and Zechariah. The first three of these kings were dead at the time that Hosea made the prophecy, so if it meant what LJ is claiming, he would still be arguing that the descendants of Jehu living in Hosea's time were going to be punished because of "sins" committed by their ancestors. That interpretation would still be a case of vicarious punishment, which would be different from 12:14 that was saying that Ephraim [Israel] would suffer for the blood that he had [personally] shed.

As for Hosea 9:7-8,15-17 and 10:4-8, which LJ urged us to "see," those who take the time to read them will find nothing but more prophetic rantings against Ephraim [Israel] and predictions that Yahweh would bring dire punishments, including exile, to the Ephraimites [Israelites] of that time for various offenses that they themselves and not their ancestors had committed. Hence, these verses are entirely different from Hosea 1:4, where the prophet predicted vicarious punishment of the descendants of Jehu, living at that time, for the massacre that he committed at Jezreel.

We have "the blood of Jezreel" in Hosea 1:4 and "his blood" in 12:14. Since the latter expression clearly refers to the blood of Ephraim (=Israel) shed by its enemies, this makes it more likely that [the] former expression bears the same meaning.

Look at the huge leap that LJ made here when he claimed that "the blood of Ephraim" referred to the blood of Israelites "shed by its enemies." What contextual evidence does he have for this spin on the expression? For several chapters, the prophet had been cataloging Israel's "sins." As noted above, for example, he complained about Israelite treaties and commerce with Assyria and Egypt and the way that some merchants had made themselves rich by cheating their customers with false scales, but these were just three of numerous "sins" that Hosea raved against. After complaining that there was no faithfulness or knowledge of God in the land, he had also condemned the Israelites for various immoralities, one of which was murder or the shedding of blood.

Hosea 3:2 There is only cursing, lying and murder, stealing and adultery; they break all bounds, and bloodshed follows bloodshed.

This was not the only reference that Hosea made to murders that were being committed in Israel at that time.

Hosea 6:8 Gilead is a city of wicked men, stained with footprints of blood. ⁹ As marauders lie in ambush for a man, so do bands of priests; they murder on the road to Shechem, committing shameful crimes.

If LJ is going to claim that in 12:14 the prophet was referring to the blood of Israelites who had been killed by their enemies during the reigns of the Jehu dynasty, he needs to do more than just assert it; he needs to present contextual evidence, which he certainly won't find in this passage. Throughout the book of Hosea, the prophet's theme was that Ephraim [Israel] was going to be punished for its own sins. In 8:13, for example, he said, "They offer sacrifices given to me [Yahweh] and they eat the meat, but Yahweh is not pleased with them. Now he will remember their wickedness and punish their sins: They will return to Egypt." The Israelites were not punished by being sent back to Egypt, so this is just another example of failed prophecy that abounds in the rantings of the Hebrew prophets. What I want readers to see in this verse, however, is that Hosea said rather clearly that Yahweh was going to remember the wickedness of the Israelites and punish them for their sins. He was not talking about vicarious punishment for things that had been done by their ancestors but for the "sins" that they had personally committed. This theme of personal punishment was stated several times by Hosea.

Hosea 4:6 (M)y people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. "Because you have rejected knowledge, I also reject you as my priests; because you have ignored the law of your God, I also will ignore your children. ⁷ The more the priests increased, the more they sinned against me; they exchanged their Glory for something disgraceful. ⁸ They feed on the sins of my people and relish their wickedness. ⁹ And it will be: Like people, like priests. I will punish both of them for their ways and repay them for their deeds.

In one of Hosea's many warnings that personal punishment was coming to the people, he included bloodshed as one of the "sins" for which they would be punished.

Hosea 4:1 Hear the word of Yahweh, you Israelites, because Yahweh has a charge to bring against you who live in the land: "There is no faithfulness, no love, no acknowledgment of God in the land. ² There is only cursing, lying and murder, stealing and adultery; they break all bounds, and bloodshed follows bloodshed. ³ Because of this the land mourns, and all who live in it waste away; the beasts of the field and the birds of the air and the fish of the sea are dying. ⁴ "But let no man bring a charge, let no man accuse another, for your people are like those who bring charges against a priest. ⁵ You stumble day and night, and the prophets stumble with you. So I will destroy your mother....

Several times Hosea predicted dire punishment of the Israelites for their various "sins," some of which included murder and bloodshed, so I would dearly like to see LJ show through contextual analysis that the "bloodguilt" of Ephraim referred to in 12:14 was a vicarious guilt for "children of Israel" whom the Syrians had killed during prior reigns of the Jehu dynasty rather than a guilt for blood that they had personally shed in their own time. This is what he must do in order to make his case.

Let us allow Hosea himself to interpret his own language.

I have just done that, and when we let Hosea interpret his own language, we see that he obviously didn't intend the expression "for the blood of Jezreel" to mean what LJ has tried to make it mean.

2 Kings 10:30, a postponed judgment: Most readers of 2 Kings 10:30 see nothing more than God's commendation of Jehu for destroying the house of Ahab. But reading between the lines, one sees a hidden judgment mixed with the commendation.

I will interrupt momentarily to say that when would-be "apologists" can't find passages that say in plain language what they want them to say, they always want to "read between the lines," but to understand the meaning of biblical texts, why should we have to read between the lines in a book presumably inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent deity? Shouldn't we expect to find clarity in a book so inspired? LJ rewrote Hosea 1:4 above to make it clearly say what he claims that the verse meant, but if this is really what Hosea intended his readers to understand, why couldn't the omniscient, omnipotent one have inspired the prophet to write it with that degree of clarity? It just doesn't seem very moral to me that a deity would reveal to mankind truths of eternal importance but inspire his chosen writers to use a sort of secret code that would require us to "read between the lines." A revelation written in such a way would be bound to be misunderstood by most readers. Indeed, LJ even indicated at the very end of his article that Hosea 1:4 had been universally misunderstood until he finally came along to tell everyone what it really means. We are so fortunate that he finally arrived on the scene to set the world straight on the meaning of a text that had been misunderstood for almost three thousand years.

As we continue, I urge readers to notice that LJ began at this point not just to "read between the lines" but to rewrite radically various texts to make them support his view of what Hosea 1:4 really meant. If his revisions of these texts accurately convey what they were intended to mean, I can't help wondering why LJ's omnimax deity didn't just inspire his chosen ones to write them that way. I will be reminding readers of this question as we work our way though his revisions of the biblical texts.

2 Kings 10:29-31 reads:

²⁹Howbeit from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin, Jehu departed not from after them, to wit, the golden calves that were in Bethel, and that were in Dan. ³⁰ And the Lord said unto Jehu [presumably through a prophet], Because thou hast done well in executing that which is right in Mine eyes, and hast done unto the house of Ahab according to all that was in Mine heart, thy children of the fourth generation shall sit upon the throne of Israel. ³¹ But Jehu took no heed to walk in the law of the Lord God of Israel with all his heart: for he departed not from the sins of Nebat, which made Israel to sin (KJV).

Look at the context of 2 Kings 10:30 carefully. In the immediately preceding verse (vs.29), the writer says that Jehu "departed not" from the sins of Jeroboam.

No one is saying that the writer of 2 Kings didn't disapprove of Jehu's toleration of the golden-calf shrines, but the writer's disapproval of this does not negate the fact that he told this story in a way that conveyed Yahweh's approval of Jehu's massacre of the house of Ahab. Hence, the writer approved of Jehu's extermination of the house of Ahab but disapproved of his toleration of the golden-calf worship. Jehu was not the only biblical character who was simultaneously praised and deprecated for his conduct. Yahweh was so pleased with David's righteousness that he promised to establish his kingdom forever (Ps. 89:3-4,20-29,35-37; 132;11-12). He was praised for doing that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh (1 Kings 15:4-5) but condemned for his conduct in the matter of Uriah the Hittite (2 Sam. 12). For the former, Yahweh promised to give David "a lamp in Jerusalem forever" (1 Kings 15:4; 1 Kings 11:34-39), but for the latter and other blood that he had shed, David was not allowed to build Yahweh a temple (1 Ch. 22:7-8). Likewise, Solomon was rewarded for his righteousness (1 Ch. 22:6-11) but punished for practicing idolatry (1 Kings 11:1-13) by having part of the kingdom taken from him. There was nothing unusual, then, in the biblical text that praised and rewarded Jehu for having done all that was in Yahweh's heart in the Jezreel massacres but simultaneously reproached him for having tolerated the golden-calf shrines at Bethel and Dan.

Then, in vs.31, he again says: "But he took no heed to walk in the law of the Lord God with all his heart: for he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam..."

As I have already pointed out many times, this same disapproval was expressed about the reigns of several kings of Israel: Nadab (1 Kings 15:26), Baasha (15:34), Omri (16:25-26), Ahab (16:30-31), Ahaziah (22:51-53), Jehoram (2 Kings 3:1-3), Jehoahaz (13:1-2), Jehoash (13:10-11), Jeroboam II (14:23-24), Zechariah (15:8-9), Menahem (15:17-18), Pekahiah (15:23-24), and Pekah (15:27-28). Furthermore, it wasn't at all uncommon for the Kings author to praise kings for "doing that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh" and then in the same breath to reproach them for allowing pagan worship to continue.

1 Kings 3:3 Solomon showed his love for Yahweh by walking according to the statutes of his father David, except that he offered sacrifices and burned incense on the high places.

1 Kings 15:11 Asa did what was right in the eyes of Yahweh, as his father David had done. ¹² He expelled the male shrine prostitutes from the land and got rid of all the idols his fathers had made. ¹³ He even deposed his grandmother Maacah from her position as queen mother, because she had made a repulsive Asherah pole. Asa cut the pole down and burned it in the Kidron Valley. ¹⁴ Although he did not remove the high places, Asa's heart was fully committed to Yahweh all his life.

Notice that the writer said that Asa's heart "was fully committed to Yahweh all of his life" even though he did not remove the pagan shrines in the high places, so the fact that the Kings writer said that Jehu did not end the golden-shrine worship begun by Jeroboam would not within itself indicate that the author thought that this was a "sin" that warranted destroying his dynasty. If, for, example Asa was "fully committed to Yahweh all of his life" even though he tolerated pagan worship in the high places, why couldn't it be said that Jehu, who completely wiped out Baal worship, was also fully committed to Yahweh, even though he tolerated the golden-calf shrines? This is a legitimate question, since we see in other places that the Kings writer praised kings for doing what was right "in the eyes of Yahweh" while at the same time allowing pagan worship in the high places.

1 Kings 22:43 In everything he [Jehoshaphat] walked in the ways of his father Asa and did not stray from them; he did what was right in the eyes of Yahweh. The high places, however, were not removed, and the people continued to offer sacrifices and burn incense there.

2 Kings 12:1 In the seventh year of Jehu, Joash became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem forty years. His mother's name was Zibiah; she was from Beersheba. ² Joash did what was right in the eyes of Yahweh all the years Jehoiada the priest instructed him. ³ The high places, however, were not removed; the people continued to offer sacrifices and burn incense there.

2 Kings 14:3 He [Amaziah of Judah] did what was right in the eyes of Yahweh, but not as his father David had done. In everything he followed the example of his father Joash. ⁴ The high places, however, were not removed; the people continued to offer sacrifices and burn incense there.

2 Kings 15:3 He [Azariah] did what was right in the eyes of Yahweh, just as his father Amaziah had done. ⁴ The high places, however, were not removed; the people continued to offer sacrifices and burn incense there.

2 Kings 15:33 He [Jotham] was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem sixteen years. His mother's name was Jerusha daughter of Zadok. ³⁴ He did what was right in the eyes of Yahweh, just as his father Uzziah had done. ³⁵ The high places, however, were not removed; the people continued to offer sacrifices and burn incense there.

I have used a bit of overkill here, but I have taken the time to cite all of the above examples so that readers can see that LJ assumed far too much when he revised 2 Kings 10:30 below to make it appear that the Kings author thought that Jehu's allowing pagan worship was such a serious offense that his lineage deserved to be wiped out. I have shown that the Kings writer obviously thought that a king who allowed pagan worship could otherwise be one who "did what was right in the eyes of Yahweh." As noted above, the author of Kings put praise for doing what was right in the eyes of Yahweh alongside reproach for allowing pagan worship to continue during the reigns of several Israelite and Judean kings, so there is no reason at all to "read between the lines" in 2 Kings 10:29-30 as LJ has done to distort the author's intended meaning. If the kings just cited above could have done what was right in the eyes of Yahweh while simultaneously tolerating pagan worship, there is no reason to think that the author of Kings didn't have the same opinion of Jehu.

Now if vs.30 was purely meant to be a commendation of Jehu, and nothing else, then the setting of the promise that his dynasty would continue until the fourth generation would be most incongruous. The incongruity would be that a wholly positive statement expressing approval was sandwiched between two statements having a negative content expressing disapprobation.

Who has said that 2 Kings 10:30 was "purely meant to be a commendation of Jehu, and nothing else"? It was no more this than the passages quoted immediately above were intended to be only commendations of David, Solomon, Jehoshaphat, etc. These were all obviously intended as commendations tempered with reproaches for the shortcomings noted within the same contexts. The commendation and reproach of Jehu within the same context, then, would have been no more unusual than the writer's commendation and reproach of various other kings within the same contexts. If LJ thinks that there is incongruity in having commendation in a statement "sandwiched between two statements having a negative content," then consistency would require him to find incongruity in the various texts cited above where various kings, including even David and Solomon, were both praised and reproached in the same texts. There was nothing at all unusual in the way that the author of 2 Kings put commendation and reproach of Jehu within the same general context.

But this incongruity disappears when vs.30 is expanded to read as follows: "And the Lord said to Jehu, 'Thou shouldest be punished for committing the sins of Jeroboam, but because thou hast done well in executing that which is right in Mine eyes, and hast done unto the house of Ahab according to all that was in Mine heart, thy children of the fourth generation shall sit upon the throne of Israel, in which I will judge thine house."

I am confident that most readers will have no difficulty seeing that LJ is now engaging in revisionism rather than interpretation. If this is what the author of 2 Kings meant to say, then why couldn't the omnimax deity inspiring him have guided him to write it this way? LJ's insistence upon revising Bible texts to make them read the way he would have written them makes his god Yahweh look like a nincompoop who was unable to guide his inspired ones to write with a clarity that would have required no "expansion" or "reading between the lines."

With the expanded form of vs.30, the entire passage would read as follows:

Howbeit from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin, Jehu departed not from after them, to wit, the golden calves that were in Bethel, and that were in Dan [vs.29]. And the Lord said unto Jehu, Thou shouldest be punished for committing the sins of Jeroboam, but because thou hast done well in executing that which is right in Mine eyes, and hast done unto the house of Ahab according to all that was in Mine heart, thy children of the fourth generation shall sit upon the throne of Israel, in which I will judge thine house [vs.30]. But Jehu took no heed to walk in the law of the Lord God of Israel with all his heart: for he departed not from the sins of Nebat, which made Israel to sin [vs.31].

Doesn't the passage make more sense now?

Not at all, because those who have more than just LJ's obviously superficial knowledge of the Bible will know, as I showed above, that the author(s) of the books of Kings often praised and reproached kings within the very narrow confines of passages that briefly summarized the reigns of Israelite and Judean kings. I could just as well rewrite the passages that praised and reproached other kings to read as follows.

1 Kings 3:3 Although Solomon should have been punished for offering sacrifices and burning incense on the high places, Yahweh kept the kingdom together for Solomon. because he showed his love for Yahweh by walking according to the statutes of his father David.

1 Kings 15:11 Although Asa should have been punished for not removing the high places, he was rewarded during his reign for otherwise doing what was right in the eyes of Yahweh, as his father David had done. ¹² He expelled the male shrine prostitutes from the land and got rid of all the idols his fathers had made. ¹³ He even deposed his grandmother Maacah from her position as queen mother, because she had made a repulsive Asherah pole. Asa cut the pole down and burned it in the Kidron Valley.

If I suggested such revisions to these texts, however, I am sure that LJ would be among the first to accuse me of reading into them information not justified by the way they were originally written.

In vs.29 the writer is setting out the basis for the judgment implied in vs.30, then in vs.31 saying, in effect: 'In spite of the prophecy of judgment pronounced against his house, Jehu took no preventive action to avert the future tragedy to befall the fourth generation of his descendants by departing from the sins of Jeroboam.' It is implied that if Jehu had given up calf worship and been wholly true to God, his house would have escaped judgment.

No, that is not at all implied. It is something that LJ is reading into the text. He just can't seem to understand a simple fact that I have now pointed out several times in my replies to his article: Biblical writers, like their ancient contemporaries, superstitiously believed that the gods were involved in every aspect of life, and so they interpreted events--including even trivial ones--accordingly. Hence, biblical writers routinely assigned blame for personal or national calamities on the "sins" of either the people in general or particular individuals. I quoted above several biblical passages in which different kings of Judah and Israel were simultaneously praised and reproached. The reproach was almost always for the toleration of pagan worship, yet most of these kings "slept with their fathers," i. e., died natural deaths, and no subsequent "judgments" were rendered on their descendants, so the spin that LJ is trying to put onto 1 Kings 10:29-31 would make his god Yahweh a capricious deity who did nothing to some kings for allowing idolatry but grievously punished others. Such a view would conflict with biblical claims that "God" is no respector of persons (Acts 10:34-35; Rom. 2:11). Reasonable people would understand anyway that when a biblical writer claimed that kings like Nadab (1 Kings 15:25-30), Elah (16:8-14), Jehoram (2 Kings 9), et al, were punished vicariously for "sins" of their ancestors, he was simply interpreting events of his time in accordance with a prevailing superstitious belief that the gods were involved in all human events. If, then, a king who had apparently done nothing grievously wrong himself was assassinated and his entire family massacred, as happened to Nadab, Elah, Jehoram, et al, this was seen as postponed punishment for "sins" that had been committed by an ancestor. In the cases of Nadab and Elah, they and their families were massacred as punishment for Jeroboam's sin of instituting pagan worship at Bethel and Dan (1 Kings 12:25-32), and Jehoram and his family were massacred because of the "sins" of Ahab (2 Kings 9:7-10). To the superstitious minds of biblical writers, there was no such thing as calamities that just happened by purely natural reasons, such as human ambition or cruelty, so they invariably attributed tragedies like massacres or military defeats to the will of their god, who was pulling strings to avenge the "sins" of those who had escaped punishment during their lives.

The Hebrew word translated as "took no heed" in 2 Kings 10:31 is shâmar (No. 8104 of Strong's Concordance), which is so translated in the KJV more than thirty times and has meanings which include "beware, be circumspect, take heed [to self]." When so translated, it means taking care to do or not do something to avoid some negative consequence. For example, see Genesis 31:24, where God says to Laban, "Take heed that thou speak not to Jacob either good or bad [lest I punish thee if thou do so]"; and Deuteronomy 11:16: "Take heed to yourselves, that your heart be not deceived, and ye turn aside, and serve other gods, and worship them; and then the Lord's wrath be kindled against you..."

I don't know what LJ thought he was accomplishing by his appeal to the meaning of the Hebrew word shâmar, because I certainly wouldn't dispute LJ's analysis of how the word was used in the texts he cited. Likewise, I would never say that the writer(s) of 2 Kings didn't think that Jehu's toleration of the golden-calf shrines was a failure on his part to "take heed" to Yahweh's commands against worshiping other gods, but in the same way that Jehu failed to "take heed" to "walk in the way of Yahweh with all his heart" by eliminating not just Baal worship (2 Kings 10:18-28) but also the golden-calf shrines at Dan and Bethel, so the toleration and practice of pagan worship by kings like Solomon, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Joash, et al would have likewise been failures on their part to take heed to Yahweh's commands against worshiping other gods. By that standard, then, Jehu had done no worse than other kings in "heed[ing]" Yahweh's commands against worshiping other gods, so if Jehu's failure to heed Yahweh's command against idolatry caused--as LJ is claiming--Yahweh to destroy his lineage [house], why didn't it cause him to destroy, say, Solomon's house? That's a question that needs a plausible answer, since Yahweh, despite Solomon's idolatry, had promised to establish his house forever on the throne of David (2 Sam. 7:12-13; 1 Chron. 22:9-10). It seems that LJ's god Yahweh was a bit inconsistent at times.

So there is both good news and bad news for Jehu in 2 Kings 10:30: the bad news, which is not specifically mentioned but implied, is that his house is to be judged for continuing in the sins of Jeroboam;

Implied is the key word here, because we have seen how easily LJ sees implications, not specifically mentioned, when he wants to read into biblical texts what he would like them to say in order to "prove" his "solution" to the problem of inconsistency in 2 Kings 10:30 and Hosea 1:4. LJ has yet to answer questions that have now been asked several times: Why did writers inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent deity only "imply" that Jehu's house would be "judged" for Jehu's having "continu[ed] in the sins of Jeroboam"? Why couldn't they have unequivocally said so in a way that would have required no "reading between the lines"? The legitimacy of these questions can be seen in the times that the Kings writer(s) did specifically state that "judgment" was brought upon the lineages of several kings for their having either begun or continued Jeroboam's "sin" or committed similar offenses.

1 Kings 14:6 So when Ahijah [the prophet] heard the sound of her [Jeroboam's wife's] footsteps at the door, he said, "Come in, wife of Jeroboam. Why this pretense? I have been sent to you with bad news. ⁷ Go, tell Jeroboam that this is what Yahweh, the God of Israel, says: 'I raised you up from among the people and made you a leader over my people Israel. ⁸ I tore the kingdom away from the house of David and gave it to you, but you have not been like my servant David, who kept my commands and followed me with all his heart, doing only what was right in my eyes. ⁹ You have done more evil than all who lived before you. You have made for yourself other gods, idols made of metal; you have provoked me to anger and thrust me behind your back. ¹⁰ " 'Because of this, I am going to bring disaster on the house of Jeroboam. I will cut off from Jeroboam every last male in Israel--slave or free. I will burn up the house of Jeroboam as one burns dung, until it is all gone. ¹¹ Dogs will eat those belonging to Jeroboam who die in the city, and the birds of the air will feed on those who die in the country. Yahweh has spoken!'"

No "reading between the lines" was necessary here to understand that Yahweh was emphatically stating that the house of Jeroboam would be wiped out for having begun the worship of golden calves in the northern kingdom. The same is true of the other times when Yahweh specifically said that the lineages of other kings would be destroyed for similar "sins."

1 Kings 15:25 Nadab son of Jeroboam became king of Israel in the second year of Asa king of Judah, and he reigned over Israel two years. ²⁶ He did evil in the eyes of Yahweh, walking in the ways of his father and in his sin, which he had caused Israel to commit. ²⁷ Baasha son of Ahijah of the house of Issachar plotted against him, and he struck him down at Gibbethon, a Philistine town, while Nadab and all Israel were besieging it. ²⁸ Baasha killed Nadab in the third year of Asa king of Judah and succeeded him as king. ²⁹ As soon as he began to reign, he killed Jeroboam's whole family. He did not leave Jeroboam anyone that breathed, but destroyed them all, according to the word of Yahweh given through his servant Ahijah the Shilonite--³⁰ because of the sins Jeroboam had committed and had caused Israel to commit, and because he provoked Yahweh, the God of Israel, to anger.

1 Kings 15:33 In the third year of Asa king of Judah, Baasha son of Ahijah became king of all Israel in Tirzah, and he reigned twenty-four years. ³⁴ He did evil in the eyes of Yahweh, walking in the ways of Jeroboam and in his sin, which he had caused Israel to commit. 16:1 Then the word of Yahweh came to Jehu [the prophet, not the king] son of Hanani against Baasha: ² "I lifted you up from the dust and made you leader of my people Israel, but you walked in the ways of Jeroboam and caused my people Israel to sin and to provoke me to anger by their sins. ³ So I am about to consume Baasha and his house, and I will make your house like that of Jeroboam son of Nebat. ⁴ Dogs will eat those belonging to Baasha who die in the city, and the birds of the air will feed on those who die in the country...." ¹¹ As soon as he began to reign and was seated on the throne, he killed off Baasha's whole family. He did not spare a single male, whether relative or friend. ¹² So Zimri destroyed the whole family of Baasha, in accordance with the word of Yahweh spoken against Baasha through the prophet Jehu--¹³ because of all the sins Baasha and his son Elah had committed and had caused Israel to commit, so that they provoked Yahweh, the God of Israel, to anger by their worthless idols.

1 Kings 21:17 Then the word of Yahweh came to Elijah the Tishbite: ¹⁸ "Go down to meet Ahab king of Israel, who rules in Samaria. He is now in Naboth's vineyard, where he has gone to take possession of it. ¹⁹ Say to him, 'This is what Yahweh says: Have you not murdered a man and seized his property?' Then say to him, 'This is what Yahweh says: In the place where dogs licked up Naboth's blood, dogs will lick up your blood--yes, yours!'" ²⁰ Ahab said to Elijah, "So you have found me, my enemy!" "I have found you," he answered, "because you have sold yourself to do evil in the eyes of Yahweh. ²¹ 'I am going to bring disaster on you. I will consume your descendants and cut off from Ahab every last male in Israel--slave or free. ²² I will make your house like that of Jeroboam son of Nebat and that of Baasha son of Ahijah, because you have provoked me to anger and have caused Israel to sin.' ²³ "And also concerning Jezebel Yahweh says: 'Dogs will devour Jezebel by the wall of Jezreel.' ²⁴ "Dogs will eat those belonging to Ahab who die in the city, and the birds of the air will feed on those who die in the country."

2 Kings 9:6 Then the prophet poured the oil on Jehu's head and declared, "This is what Yahweh, the God of Israel, says: 'I anoint you king over the Lord's people Israel. ⁷ You are to destroy the house of Ahab your master, and I will avenge the blood of my servants the prophets and the blood of all the Lord's servants shed by Jezebel. ⁸ The whole house of Ahab will perish. I will cut off from Ahab every last male in Israel--slave or free. ⁹ I will make the house of Ahab like the house of Jeroboam son of Nebat and like the house of Baasha son of Ahijah. ¹⁰ As for Jezebel, dogs will devour her on the plot of ground at Jezreel, and no one will bury her.'"

We see no mincing of words in these passages, where the Kings writer(s) specifically and emphatically stated that the lineages of all these kings were being destroyed because of specific offenses, usually the "sin" of Jeroboam, yet LJ expects us to believe that the same writer(s), for reasons known only to LJ and his omnimax deity, didn't state "specifically" that Jehu's house was to be "judged for continuing in the sins of Jeroboam." He just "implied" it.

Why? This is a question to which we expect LJ to give us a plausible answer.

the good news is that the judgment is postponed to the fourth generation as a "reward" for serving God in destroying the house of Ahab.

We just noted that a pronouncement of "judgment" on the house of Jehu for tolerating worship at the golden-calf shrines exists only in LJ's imagination of "implications" that apparently only he is able to see. As noted, when the writer of Kings thought that Yahweh had pronounced or rendered judgment on kings because of their offenses, he specifically said so in no uncertain terms, so we have no reason to believe that he wouldn't have done the same in the matter of Jehu if he had really thought that such divine judgment against him had been decreed. This "judgment" against Jehu exists only in LJ's imagination.

Contrast the promise given to Jehu that his house would continue until "the fourth generation" with the promise given to king David that his house would continue "forever" (2 Samuel 7:11-16). Why only until the fourth generation and not forever like the house of David? This difference makes sense only if we see the promise to Jehu that his dynasty would continue until the fourth generation as lenience shown in what is otherwise a judgment.

This is not at all a difficult question to answer, and LJ wouldn't even have asked it had he understood something I have now pointed out several times: biblical writers interpreted events in accordance with the belief of their times that the gods rewarded and punished people according to whether they had pleased or displeased their gods. If good fortune came one's way, he had pleased the gods; if misfortune befell him, he had displeased them. Accordingly, when Ahaziah of Judah was killed in Jehu's massacre, after only a one-year reign (2 Chron. 22:2), at the age of 23 (2 Kings 8:26) or 43, depending on whether you want to believe the author of Kings or the chronicler Chron. 22:2), the latter, seeing the assassination of Ahaziah as a divinely destined event, said that "it was ordained by God that the downfall of Ahaziah should come about through his going to visit Joram" (2 Chron. 22:7). To a mind conditioned by the superstitions of his time, the chronicler would never have thought that misfortune just happens and that Ahaziah had simply had the bad luck of going to visit his uncle at the wrong time. Likewise, when Zemri became king after a bloody coup (1 Kings 16:15), he died in a countercoup seven days later because of "his sins which he sinned in doing that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh" (vs:18-19), as if, comparatively speaking, seven days would have been long enough for Zemri to have done any substantial amount of "evil" compared to what had been done by the likes of Jeroboam I, Ahab, Omri, etc. That Zemi couldn't have done very much "evil" in only seven days is rather evident, since his massacre of the house of Baasha had earlier been described as something that had been done "according to the word of Yahweh, which he had spoken against Baasha by Jehu the prophet" (1 Kings 16:12), so whatever "evil" Zemri may have done would have necessarily followed his execution of Yahweh's will by exterminating the house of Baasha. If Zemi became king by assassinating Baasha's son Elah and had afterwards, "as soon as he sat on his throne," proceeded to "kill all the household of Baasha" so as not to "leave [alive] a single male, neither of his relatives nor of his friends," all of which was presumably what Yahweh had wanted him to do, then Zemri couldn't have had too much time during the remainder of his short seven-day reign to have engaged in doing a lot of "evil." Readers can go here to see this point discussed and supported with additional examples of the ancient belief that misfortune (usually death) resulted from displeasing Yahweh and good fortune, such as military successes and long reigns, resulted from "doing that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh."

Biblical writers were by no means consistent in applying this belief to their interpretations of the events of their time, because they would sometimes confront apparent exceptions to this belief: some who did that which was supposedly good would suffer misfortune and those who did wrong would seemingly go unpunished. This had to be explained, and the author(s) of the books of Kings, who had the advantage of writing after the fact, used scapegoating to explain these exceptions. If a "good" king experienced good luck, this, of course, resulted from his having pleased Yahweh, but if bad luck happened during his reign, this was attributed to what LJ would call "deferred punishment" for something that had been done by an ancestor. Hezekiah and Manasseh, respectively, are examples of how the writer(s) applied this principle to the interpretation of Israelite history. Hezekiah reigned as king of Judah for 29 years, during which time he "removed the high places" and destroyed the brazen serpent made by Moses, which had become an object of worship (2 Kings 18:4), and died a natural death (20:21), so he was described as a king more righteous than all of those who had come before or after him (18:5). His son Manasseh, however, was described as just the opposite. He restored the high places, offered his own son as a burnt offering, and "shed innocent blood" from one end of Jerusalem to the other (2 Kings 21:3,6,16), so he became a convenient scapegoat for Judah's eventual defeat by the Babylonians. Even though his grandson Josiah was a righteous king, who, like Hezekiah, was paradoxically described as the most righteous of all kings before or after him (2 Kings 23:25), Yahweh, so the writer(s) of 2 Kings thought, considered Manasseh's "sins" so grievous that, despite Josiah's exceptional righteousness, he would not allow Judah to continue as a nation.

2 Kings 23:25 Neither before nor after Josiah was there a king like him who turned to Yahweh as he did--with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his strength, in accordance with all the Law of Moses. ²⁶ Nevertheless, Yahweh did not turn away from the heat of his fierce anger, which burned against Judah because of all that Manasseh had done to provoke him to anger. ²⁷ So Yahweh said, "I will remove Judah also from my presence as I removed Israel, and I will reject Jerusalem, the city I chose, and this temple, about which I said, 'There shall my Name be.'"

When Judah finally fell to the Babylonians, the author(s) of 2 Kings again reminded his readers that Manasseh was the cause of this defeat, even though at that time, he had been dead for over 50 years.

2 Kings 24:3 Surely these things happened to Judah according to Yahweh's command, in order to remove them from his presence because of the sins of Manasseh and all he had done, ⁴ including the shedding of innocent blood. For he had filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and Yahweh was not willing to forgive.

This was the way that the author(s) of the books of Kings affixed blame in his/their interpretations of Israelite history, but the postexilic chronicler would often put entirely different spins on characters and events that had previously been blamed for misfortunes that had befallen the Israelites. As noted above, for example, Manasseh was the scapegoat whom the Kings writer(s) blamed for Judah's captivity in Babylon, but the chronicler viewed Manasseh much more sympathetically. Rather than a king who had conducted himself despicably all through his reign, as the author(s) of Kings had portrayed him, the chronicler depicted him as a king who got off to a bad start by promoting idolatry for which Yahweh caused him to be captured by the Assyrians and taken to Babylon (2 Chron. 33:1-11), where in his distress he humbled himself, entreated Yahweh's favor, and was restored to his kingdom in Jerusalem (vs:12-13). After this, so the chronicler claimed, Manasseh "knew that Yahweh was God" (vs:13). The chronicler went on to depict Manasseh as a reformer, who removed foreign gods, destroyed their altars, rebuilt Yahweh's altar, and commanded the people of Judah to serve Yahweh (vs:14-16).

The contrasting views of Manasseh presented in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles are nothing short of startling, but this is just one example among many biblical inconsistencies that make one wonder why LJ seems so bent on whitewashing the conflicting views that Hosea and the author(s) of 2 Kings had of the Jezreel massacre. That people in ancient times would have superstitiously believed that gods were involved in all human events should come as no surprise to LJ, because many religious conservatives think the same way even in our relatively enlightened times. When a tsunami devasted Southeastern Asia, including LJ's native country Shri Lanka, in December 2004, some Christian fundamentalists declared this to be God's judgment on a non-Christian area, even though many of those killed were tourists from Christian countries. The earthquake that killed thousands in Pakistan in October 2005 was seen the same way by some fundamentalist Christians, and they also declared the hurricanes Katrina and Rita that devastated the gulf-coast region of the United States to be judgment from God because of the decadent lifestyles of many residents of New Orleans. Such belief seems strange to critical thinkers, but it is sadly a fact of life even today, so we can imagine how deeply ingrained it was in biblical times.

Apparently not understanding the way that biblical writers applied this belief to the characters and events of their time has caused LJ to argue in favor of his spin on 2 Kings 10:30 by asking why "God" had promised to extend the reign of David's descendants "forever" but had promised that Jehu's house would reign for only four generations. The answer to LJ's question isn't at all difficult to those who recognize that biblical writers interpreted events according to their superstitious beliefs. Ethnocentrism was a deeply instilled belief in biblical times, so the Hebrews, like the Babylonians, thought that their kingdom would last forever; hence, an everlasting Davidic kingdom, as noted above, had become an integral part of Hebrew tradition, so the improbability of two everlasting Hebrew kingdoms could well be a plausible reason why the author(s) of the books of kings didn't think that Jehu's actions at Jezreel were rewarded with a divine promise of an everlasting kingdom that would have descendants of Jehu sitting on his throne forever. Furthermore, the book of 2 Kings was obviously written after the fact, so the writer would have known that Jehu's dynasty had ended with the assassination of Zechariah, a fourth-generation descendant of Jehu (2 Kings 15:8-12), so the writer's interpretation of these events was that this was simply the way that Yahweh had intended it. Since Jehu had done Yahweh's will in exterminating the house of Ahab, Yahweh had rewarded him with a promise to allow four generations of his descendants to reign in the northern kingdom (2 Kings 10:30). The writer claimed that Yahweh had decreed a four-generation promise to Jehu's dynasty, because he knew that the dynasty had ended with Jehu's fourth-generation descendant Zechariah.

Hindsight gave biblical writers a huge advantage in describing prophecy fulfillments. If Jehu's dynasty had ended with Zechariah's father Jeroboam II, the writer would have written 2 Kings 10:30 as a prophecy that Jehu's sons would reign over Israel for three generations; if the dynasty had lasted through another generation after Zechariah, he would have written it as a five-generation prophecy. There is no mystery at all to why Jehu had been promised that his sons would reign for four generations. The writer of 2 Kings knew that this was how many generations had reigned during the Jehu dynasty, so they interpreted the duration of this dynasty in accordance with their belief that whatever happened in human events happened that way because their god Yahweh had wanted it to be this way. LJ might say that the same thing could be said about the Davidic kingdom. The author of 2 Kings would have known that the Davidic kingdom had ended with Judah's fall to Nebuchadnezzar. That is true, but ethnocentrism was so deeply ingrained in Hebrew society that biblical writers just couldn't have imagined that the conquest of Judah would be the end of the promised Davidic kingdom, so such writers as Hosea, Isaiah (Isaiah 11), Jeremiah (Jer. 33:14-26), et al envisioned the restoration of a reunified kingdom like the one over which David and Solomon had reigned. We now know that no such restoration ever happened. The exiled Judeans, through the magnanimity of Cyrus of Persia, were allowed to return to Judah, but the northern tribes exiled by the Assyrians have been lost forever.

At this point, LJ began a section to his article in which he assumed that he has correctly determined that Hosea 1:4 had prophesied a "deferred punishment" on the house of Jehu as retribution for all of the "children of Israel" killed by the Syrians during the reign of the Jehu dynasty. Having made that assumption, he then, as we will see, proceeded to prove it by citing other examples of "deferred punishment" in the Bible. The poor fellow can't seem to realize that if other examples of "deferred punishment" prove his interpretation of Hosea 1:4, those same examples would likewise prove the traditional scholarly view that Hosea did indeed prophesy that the house of Jehu was about to experience a deferred punishment but that the punishment was going to be for the massacres that Jehu had committed at Jezreel and not for the "blood of the children of Israel" killed by the Syrians during the reigns of the Jehu dynasty. In other words, LJ and I both see a prophecy of deferred punishment in Hosea 1:4, but we see a punishment that was deferred for different reasons. If LJ claims that other examples of deferred punishment in the Bible prove that his interpretation is the right one, why can't I just as legitimately claim that those other examples of deferred punishment prove that my interpretation, which also involves deferred punishment, is the right one?

I will respond to LJ's deferred-punishment argument in a fourth section to show that he seems not to understand the logical axiom that says what proves too much proves nothing at all.

within All text Title Keywords Descriptions File name   using All words Any words Exact phrase