Merry Lewis of the Weather

Undaunted Courage by Stephen E. Ambrose

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


I found this to be an engaging, thoroughly researched and very good review of the Lewis & Clark expedition. It taught me a good deal more than I'd expected to learn, and did so without being dull or heavy-handed. N. D. Wilson is rumored to have said that teaching is loving something in the presence of others, and Ambrose does exactly that.



View all my reviews

Mo Chridh

I recently finished Pawn in Frankincense by Dunnett. I know of one other book that can have the same effect on me, and it was written by Tolkien. The chess game and its horrific ending. How does one subject his character to so great a suffering? And how does the character survive? And how does the author live with himself? I don't know that I could.

In my opinion, one of the most devastating climaxes of prose ever written. "Say goodnight to the dark."

Only Slightly Summoned

The Summons by John Grisham

My rating: 3 of 5 stars


Holly once complained that some of Wodehouse's books wouldn't exist except for people lying. Well here's another. And, to make matters worse, it's not Wodehouse.



Don't get me wrong: Grisham can construct a sentence, but he's better at constructing plots. However, in this one, his usual nail-biting suspense failed me greatly. About twenty minutes into it, I could have written the ending myself.



Still, it was enjoyable, and if you're even slightly less cynical than I am (do flowers wither as you walk past? When you step outside, do you darken the sun?), you'd probably greatly enjoy it.



View all my reviews

"Nature and Her Laws Lay Hid in Night...

God said 'Let Newton be,' and all was light." --My favorite little monster.

Isaac Newton by Mitch Stokes

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


I picked this book because my math teacher wrote it, not out of any inherent interest in Newton. That lasted about the first two chapters. From that point on, I was fascinated with the little guy: obsessive, neurotic, reclusive, a genius with a few slight misanthropic tendencies--he really is an astonishing character. Nothing at all like I'd pictured him, and I highly recommend this book to anyone even remotely interested in anything at all (though it is somewhat weak on dragons).



Stokes obviously knows what he's talking about, and he does a magnificent job of getting a well rounded review of Newton into so small of a book. Not only do we get the big picture, but we get an enormous amount of personality as well, which is fairly unusual.



My one complaint would have to be the somewhat inconsistent prose: Usually an author has a particular tone that he maintains. You can tell the difference between a paragraph written by Jorge Luis Borges and one written by Oscar Wilde; between Chesterton and Tolkien. Stokes' writing seemed to vary a good deal: none of it was at all bad, but there is a difference between a well researched author, and a well published researcher, and Stokes falls into the latter category. But if you approach his book with that in mind, you will not be disappointed.



View all my reviews

Like a Sheep With a Secret Sorrow...

Jeeves and the Old School Chum by P.G. Wodehouse

My rating: 5 of 5 stars


Technically, it's Jeeves & the Old School Chum (and other stories), but Goodreads couldn't find it, and no, I did not mean the Other Scholl Chum; thank you anyway.



It was typical Wodehouse: delightful. I was laughing the entire time, and of course highly recommend it. Also includes The Ordeal of Young Tuppy, Episode of the Dog McIntosh, The Love That Purifies, and The Spot of Art.



View all my reviews

How Does One Beck a Stein?

Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


Wow. That was the happiest thing I've read this side of Notes From the Underground. Brilliantly written, almost a bit predictable after the introduction of the wife, but still it unfolds like a persian rug being unrolled on a hardwood floor: lovely and intricate.



This once again reinforces in my mind the absolute necessity for writers to have the entire story mapped out before they begin the writing of it. How else the conversation regarding who should have shot the dog; how else the introduction of the self-same luger? It is a small, tight-knit plot that is tragic and all-too believable. The chief flaw of course is the utter lack of redemption.



The title, by the way, is an afterthought: originally titled "Something that Happened," the current name is from one of--in my opinion, anyway--Burn's greater poems, and one that is quite simply delightful: To a Mouse.







Wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie,
O, what panic's in thy breastie!
Thou need na start awa sae hasty,
Wi' bickering brattle!
I wad be laith to rin an' chase thee,
Wi' murd'ring pattle!

I'm truly sorry Man's dominion
Has broken Nature's social union,
An' justifies that ill opinion,
Which makes thee startle,
At me, thy poor, earth-born companion,
An' fellow-mortal!

I doubt na, whyles, but thou may thieve;
What then? poor beastie, thou maun live!
A daimen-icker in a thrave 'S a sma' request:
I'll get a blessin wi' the lave,
An' never miss't!

Thy wee-bit housie, too, in ruin!
It's silly wa's the win's are strewin!
An' naething, now, to big a new ane,
O' foggage green!
An' bleak December's winds ensuin,
Baith snell an' keen!

Thou saw the fields laid bare an' wast,
An' weary Winter comin fast,
An' cozie here, beneath the blast,
Thou thought to dwell,
Till crash! the cruel coulter past
Out thro' thy cell.

That wee-bit heap o' leaves an' stibble,
Has cost thee monie a weary nibble!
Now thou's turn'd out, for a' thy trouble,
But house or hald.
To thole the Winter's sleety dribble,
An' cranreuch cauld!

But Mousie, thou are no thy-lane,
In proving foresight may be vain:
The best laid schemes o' Mice an' Men,
Gang aft agley,
An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
For promis'd joy!

Still, thou art blest, compar'd wi' me!
The present only toucheth thee:
But Och! I backward cast my e'e,
On prospects drear!
An' forward, tho' I canna see,
I guess an' fear!



View all my reviews

Another Explanation

This time, of a question I never asked.

God appears to Moses in a burning bush: a bush that is on fire, but is not consumed. God could have appeared to him in any way, shape or form (just look at Ezekiel). So why the bush? And why was it on fire? And why was it not being consumed?

Well, let's look at typology. Trees (and bushes?) are righteous men or nations: if you doubt me, just read the Bible looking for references to trees, and attempt to do so in an intelligent manner, not in a wooden and literal fashion as if you had no brain. No, not every tree in the Bible is a person; Jonah isn't sitting under a guy with some type of fatal parasite; Absalom doesn't get nabbed by some remnant of the nephilim; but when the Bible presents a tree, it is often referring to a righteous person or nation (a basic rule would be that if the typological reading does no violence to the text, but opens it up in a manner that is consistent with the rest of Scripture, then go for it. If your typological reading leads you to the conclusion that locusts are obviously helicopters, or that you should drink the cool-aid, then maybe not so much.). The fact that this particular specimen is on fire but not consumed, along with the context of the story, makes it quite possible that it is a representation of the nation of Israel. It is on fire; they are persecuted; it is not consumed; God will save them. Just another thought from Sumpter. Or Leithart. Or someone else; I don't know, nor do I particularly care, as it's four in the morning and I have fifteen minutes of break left before I go back to work.

Also interesting is what He tells Moses to do: "Take your shoes from off your feet..." Men wear shoes to protect their feet, yes, but symbolically (or typologically) the shoes represent the separation of men from the cursed ground (see the list of clean animals: those separated from the ground, those fish with scales to separate them from the water, and those birds that don't step on dead animals--though, yes, there is more to it. See Jordan's Through New Eyes for a fuller treatment). Yet where God is, the ground is holy (tangentially, this bears enormous weight with Leviticus 5--the dust from the floor of the tabernacle is holy--and Jesus' treatment of the woman caught in the act of adultery all by her lonesome), so Moses must take off his shoes.

I am sure there is also something more to the disciples being commanded to shake the dust from their feet when leaving towns that did not receive them, but my break is almost over. I'll explore later. Or I'll just ask Leithart. Or Sumpter. Or someone else.

Blessings,
JB

Possible Explanation

In 1 Samuel 20:30, Saul makes a very confusing accusation against his son Jonathan in the wake of discovering that David had escaped his hand by Jonathan's aid (the whole feast followed by shooting arrows into a field scenario). It is an accusation whose language Saul takes directly from Leviticus 18:7, and it refers to having sexual relations with ones mother, Oedipus style.

This is all clear enough. The confusion is why the accusation is made, and why it is made here, and I came across the (possible) answer purely by accident. I had gotten off work on Saturday morning, and, purely on a whim, decided to have breakfast before going home and going to bed. So, I went to the Breakfast Club and was invited into a Bible study taking place, which Peter Leithart was leading at the time. Anyway, here is the theoretical explanation given.

By explicitly contradicting his father's wishes, Jonathan is acting as if he had no paternal obligations to Saul, which could in turn give rise to the theory that Saul was not his father. Saul's accusation is far-fetched, but Leithart's explanation fits, and, as I know of no other that does, I am adopting that as my working theory of the verse until I find something else that fits better (this is me hinting to all three of you--readership is climbing--to suggest alternate theories in the comments section).

Blessings,
JB

Stupid People = ER Job Security

Titan Theory: Who's Your Daddy (part one)

After much debate, I am finally confident enough to start mocking all those idiots that disagree with my (recently established) position on Genesis six: the Nephilim.

To get the Hebrew out of the way: נפל is the root word used here, and it means to fall (nephel). The plural ending is added, and the root word expanded, until it becomes נפילימ, nephilim, simply "fallen ones," as in rebels or apostates. Which doesn't really help us at all.

Here, I am going to outline the problems with both theories and the answers to them (where applicable), starting with the most commonly held: that the Godly line of Seth is intermarrying with the ungodly line of Cain.



First off, the phrasing is quite odd: "the sons of God... the daughters of men..." Sons of God is used elsewhere, though it's not exactly common, and it usually means the godly humans. Granted, and gladly. The issue is with its combination with "daughters of men," which is almost never used elsewhere in Scripture, and how that leaves all the masculinity on one side.

The implication is that the men of the line of Seth saw the daughters of Cain, and married them, while the daughters of the line of Seth did no such thing, which is problematic. The only plausible explanation I have heard is that the text is attempting to demonstrate the abdication of the Godly men, and demonstrates the effects of the Godly pursuing the ungodly, perhaps as a warning to future readers. While plausible, this argument is demonstrably weak, and rather difficult to extract from the plain text. Let us leave it as a possibility, and move on to the second and greater problem: giants.


The implication of the text here gives us a bit of an issue for the line of Seth theory. The sons of God (Christians) married the lovely daughters of men (the non unattractive pagan mall rats) and had kids. The kids were giants; great heroes, revered men. Why? There is no plausible explanation for why the marriage of a Christian with a pagan results in a giant--not a single one--and there are unlimited examples to the contrary, down to the present day. The only way out of it is to try to dissociate the giants from the marriages, which fails: see Genesis 6:1 and 6:4, and compare: "Now it came to pass... In those days." What days? The giants began in those days, when the sons of God saw the daughters of men.

Taking these two together, the violence done to the text to explain away the first problem is by no means justified when we are left with such a massive problem in the theory we are trying to salvage.



On to the problems with the second theory: the sons of God are angels.



First off, angels are spiritual beings, humans are physical. How can there be attraction between them?

A couple of points: there is the 1 Corinthians 11:6-10 verse, which I'm not even going to mention here. It at least links angels and women in a suggestive way, though it tells us nothing. Also, we are exposing our ridiculous dualism here: our underlying assumption is that the spiritual and physical are totally separated. Finally, we are assuming that angels are spiritual, which, oddly enough, we have no reason to do. We are told that we host angels (Hebrews 13:2), and angels do all sorts of non-spiritual things (like eat food and slaughter people). So it is quite likely that they are either both physical and spiritual (like us), or that they can at least act like it.


Secondly, it just seems crazy.

Personally, I'd like to list this under the arguments for it being correct, and here's my rather complicated logic: 1. We are stupid and usually wrong (see the Bible).


Third: the text is focused on men, their sins, and God's response.

This seems to be the most difficult problem, but let us examine it closer. God's response to the intermarriage is to say, in essence, "Okay, that's it. I've had enough." ("I will not strive with man forever...") Also, keep in mind that it is the descendants that are primarily focused upon. Both of these fit quite well within the theory that the Sons of God are angels. Overall, the text allows for the angel theory quite easily: "man is extremely sinful, and now he is getting an influx of supernatural blood, magnifying him in every way, so that's it; I'm done with him, on to Noah."


The final problem is a problem for both theories: the nephilim (נפילימ) exist after the fall.

There are three possible explanations, and none of them involve holding their breath (for these I'm indebted to Doug Wilson).

First, the same thing might have happened again. Second, the dna for these fallen ones might have been preserved through the line of Noah (very unlikely, given the text of Genesis 6: nephilim=bad, therefore I'm going to destroy the world except one family, which will of course preserve the nephilim). The most likely theory is simply that the name was later applied to non-nephilim giants, and the appellation was what survived the flood.



Given all of these, I've got to go with the theory of the Sons of God being the angels spoken of in Jude 6 and 1 Peter 3:19-20 (time of Noah is in particular illuminating in verse 20).




Any theories, arguments I failed to mention, or any type of problem that any of you have with this, please comment.

Blessings,
Jesse Broussard

The Forgotten Heavens

The Forgotten Heavens: Six Essays on Cosmology by Douglas Wilson

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


Well. First off, this book is hard to review, as it is a collection of six essays from six authors on six different subjects, but here goes.

Evan Wilson's was most definitely the most unusual and paradigmatic, and I think I mean that in a good way, but I really couldn't say with any level of certainty. It was more foreign than anything I've read since I picked up my Hebrew Psalter (though it was very clearly and coherently written). It discusses the offices of angels (those that have fallen, those that haven't, and, as Terry Pratchett put it, those that did not so much fall as saunter vaguely downwards), and as an essay on such, is necessarily straining rather uncomfortably for solid ground to stand upon. Have no fear though: his thoughts are limber.

And such an outlook: Scripturally founded (I think) and absolutely alien to the modern evangelical mind, especially as regards Satan and our dualistic tendencies. Even if you disagree with the entire essay (no comment), it is absolutely worth reading. And he actually sold me on a couple of very unusual points, which I will not mention here, lest the stones start flying. I honestly haven't changed any of my opinions so dramatically since I found out that there were Christians that didn't believe in the rapture. A tremendously worthwhile read, if for no purpose beyond straining your mind and sharpening your skills of argumentation.

The last essay was probably the most well-balanced of them all, so far as solid Scriptural foundation and yet novel enough to be very interesting, and by interesting I mean that drooling starts at the title.

I'm tentative about reviewing any more of them, aside from the comment that Wilson's preface was as good as I was hoping, and I came to love the aside "and they went into the pit alive" even more than I did before.

View all my reviews >>

First Hebrew Class

The first class was magnificent. Simply delightful, and I can now say: he remembered: the king? He reigned. As well as: Hand faithful word he declared truth. Also: Emeth should probably be pronounced Emet, and the first two words in the Bible are not Barasheth Elohim, but Barashet Elohiym. The class is about two years long (or until everyone quits), and is free. How awesome is that? Thanks to Ben Merkle: yet another reason to put off studying Latin.

47th Samurai

The 47th Samurai by Stephen Hunter

My rating: 3 of 5 stars


Another of the Bob Lee Swagger books, and a better (I would say). Swagger is older--in his sixties--and the battles take place in Japan. It's quite good, with a few cautions: it is extremely bloody, and realistically so. One of the chief villains is a pornographer, and, though none of it is dealt with explicitly or in a titillating fashion, it is there. Finally, there is some language, though much of it is called for.

The tale refers to the legend of the 47 ronin, which is magnificent, and is largely correct so far as it delves into Japanese legends, as well as the making of the great samurai swords, though with one exception: the swords are not made in a curved shape. They are made straight, but the larger mass of metal in the back of the sword contracts more than the smaller mass in the front during the cooling process, causing the blade to curve.

It is a typical Stephen Hunter book: good fun, very exciting, and has a truly clever twist that blindsided me. I'd like to claim that it was simply due to my blazing through the book, but I can't, as it would have blindsided me had I taken my time. It is very well done, and Hunter seems to have polished his craft as he practices it more.

View all my reviews >>

Song of Songs

If you've ever got a Scriptural question, go to Leithart's blog and check his archives. If it's not there, then email him. You'll probably get an answer within a couple of days.

Vineyard and bride
Peter J. Leithart
June 16, 2010
Category: Bible - OT - Song of Songs

Let us stipulate that the vineyard is the temple and the bride is Jerusalem. That clarifies two passages of the Song.

“They made me caretaker of the vineyards, but I have not taken care of my own vineyard” (1:6). True enough; Jerusalem did not care for the temple-vineyard in her midst, but turned instead to the many vineyards (high places) scattered throughout the land.

“Solomon had a vineyard at Ball-hamon; he entrusted the vineyard to caretakers; each one was to bring a thousand of silver for his fruit. My own vineyard is before me; the thousand are for you, Solomon” (8:11-12). This passage is often understood to contrast Solomon’s “thousand vineyards,” i.e., wives, with the singular vineyard belonging to the lover. If the temple is the vineyard, though, then the contrast is between the singular house belonging to Jerusalem (or to Yahweh) and the thousand vineyards that Solomon supports for the benefit of his thousand wives.

Article printed from Peter J. Leithart: http://www.leithart.com

URL to article: http://www.leithart.com/2010/06/16/vineyard-and-bride/

Seven Days Thou Shalt Work

My new schedule is as follows: I work Monday through Friday making cabinets and other woodwork from 7:30-4:30. Fridays and Saturdays I work on the floors at the hospital from 6:00-2:30. I'm not sure how long this will last (or how long I will last), but I'm finally making money, which is nice.

Wodehouse and Circumcision

go hand in hand.

Not really. But, I added a Wodehouse quote generator at the bottom of the page, and here is the best explanation of God not killing someone(?) cause Moses' wife circumcised her son and threw(?) the foreskin at someone else(?) that I've yet seen. Courtesy of my pastor Toby Sumpter at Having Two Legs.

Blessings, and enjoy.


Seventh Sunday in Trinity: Exodus 4:1-31
Opening Prayer: Almighty and gracious Lord, we humble ourselves before you now and ask that you would deal with us. We thank you that you do not deal with us only where we should have been, but you come and meet us where we are. Empower your word and remake us. And as we are humbled before your word, lift us up and exalt us and free us to serve You. Through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen!

Introduction
Who are you? Who are you to pray, to decide, to plan? Your identity is bound up with the God who sends you, the God who is with you (Mt. 28:18-20). And it is not humility to doubt this. True humility believes and obeys.

The Signs for the Elders
Both of the first two signs have to do with healing and making useful. The serpent is the same word for serpent in Genesis 3 suggesting that Moses will lead the people to reverse the dominion of the serpent (“dragon” in 7:9ff). Remember, that Pharaoh is a “seed of the serpent” at war with the “seed of the woman” who is being “fruitful and multiplying.” Notice also that both signs have to do with the hand. The hand of man is his tool for work, the most basic technology. The rod of course is an extension of a man’s hand, a tool for shepherding sheep. As we noted with the burning bush, these signs are probably also meant to picture something fundamental about Israel and her situation in Egypt. Under Joseph, Israel had exerted great influence for the blessing of Egypt. Israel, under Joseph’s leadership had been a “helping hand” and a “shepherd” for Egypt and even all the nations around them. But Israel has fallen from this high calling. Leprosy will always have strong associations with Egypt as a plague (Num. 14:3, 37, Lev. 13-14). The final sign shows how God is going to accomplish his work. Through Moses, not only is God going to tame the serpent-Pharaoh and heal the uncleanness of his people, but Yahweh will also do battle with the gods of Egypt. The Nile was the most important source of life in ancient Egypt and one of their principle gods. But God rules creation, and Moses will pour out the Nile on the ground and instead of being fruitful and giving life it will turn to blood and death. Remember, it has already been a source of death to the Hebrew baby boys. The Nile god has killed the sons of Israel. Idolatry is death.

Moses and Aaron
Moses is a little more than reluctant to take up God’s call on his life. This is somewhat understandable given how his leadership was taken 40 years ago (2:14), but Moses’ persistent reluctance is not excusable (4:14). He has gone from asking “why me?” (3:11) to “what is your name?” (3:13) to “what if they don’t believe me?” (4:1) to “I’m not a good public speaker” (4:10) and now finally “send someone else, please” (4:13). This passage could also be described as a battle of the “I’s.” The Hebrew first person pronoun for “I” is used repeatedly back and forth between Moses and God (3:6, 11, 12, 13, 4:10, 11, 12, 15, 23). While this is not particularly strange, it seems significant given the name God has given himself of “I AM” (3:14). Moses may have any number of excuses for being reluctant, but the fact is that God doesn’t care. God is the God of our fathers, the God who rules nature, the God who is with our words, and the God who is determined to accomplish his purposes. We are not sufficient of ourselves, but we are not by ourselves. “I AM” is with us and with our mouths (4:12, 15). Finally, God allows Moses to share the task with Aaron, but this concession is not a relenting of God’s purposes.

Proleptic Passover
After asking for Jethro’s blessing to leave, God speaks to Moses once more and makes even more explicit his interest in his people. Israel is his son, and he will take Pharaoh’s son if he does not let His son go to serve Him (4:22-23). This is to be a battle between fathers. Yahweh is jealous for the service of his son, and Pharaoh is effectively a kidnapper. Then, on the way into the land, Yahweh comes to kill Moses’s son (4:24). We know it is his son because it is the circumcision of his son that turns away God’s wrath (4:26). This is a somewhat mysterious event, but given the context we should be able see what God intends to teach Moses here. Evidently, Moses’ son had not been circumcised. Circumcision is the sign of God’s covenant promises. This display of blood reminded God of his promise to Abraham to be his God and make him into a nation (Gen. 15). Here, Zipporah circumcises her son and touches it to her son’s legs (4:15). Many translations do not get this right. The point is that Zipporah is displaying the blood of the circumcision to turn away the “angel of death.” She calls him a “bridegroom of blood” reminding us that the covenant is a marriage to God and His people. This is yet another preview of the Exodus in the life of Moses.

Conclusion & Application
Moses and Aaron call the elders of the people together. Aaron speaks and Moses performs the signs (4:30), and the response of the elders is worship (4:31). This is the driving motivation for bringing the Israelites out in the first place (3:18). Of course God knows (and Pharaoh knows) that the freedom to worship would turn into freedom in life. Worship drives culture and society. We’ve previously noted that the Israelites had fallen into idolatry in Egypt (Josh. 24:14). Liturgical idolatry is slavery and leads to a slave culture.

We are called to worship God faithfully and in faith; this is the single most important thing that we do. But this worship is not unrelated to the rest of our lives. Freedom here necessarily creates freedom out there. But freedom is never just doing whatever we want. Freedom is receiving the Word of God with faith and joy. Freedom is the ability to do what we were made for. Freedom is the opportunity to lay our lives down for others. If Moses had looked back in faith, he ought to have seen how God had been preparing him to obey. Just as He always does.

In the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Amen!

Unity Joke

Thanks to Toby Sumpter.

A man is walking down a bridge and sees another man standing on the railing. Naturally, he yells over "What are you doing?"
"I just can't take it anymore. I'm going to jump."
"Don't you believe in God?"
"Yes, but it's just not enough anymore."
"Are you Catholic?"
"Protestant."
"Me too! Reformed or Arminian?"
"Reformed."
"Me too! Presbyterian? Reformed Baptist?"
"Presbyterian."
"Me too! Amillenial, Postmillenial, or Premillenial?"
"Post."
"I am too! Weekly communion?"
"Yeah."
"This is amazing! Robes or no robes?"
"No robes."
"Jump already, you stupid heretic!"

You can only be so unified.

Courting Employment

I am officially hired as a night EVS worker at the hospital as well as a cabinet-maker during the day, and I've got enough yard work lined up to live off of, so all shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well, to quote the Mystic and not the infinitely superior Modern. Ten points to anyone who names the two authors referred to.

And now for sleep, that opiate of the soul...

Blessings,
JB

Zechariah and Esther

This is a theory I've been working on. I'm hesitant to publicly declare it, so I decided to hide it safely away where none may find it.

It started when I was trying to figure out the significance of different types of trees in Scripture. I finally decided to just pick one type and try to track it, seeing if there are any patterns, etc, and the type I picked was myrtle. Initial results were rather scattered, but a fact that interested me was that the Hebrew for myrtle was also a name: Hadassah.

Then, ages passed, things that should never have been forgotten were eternally lost (like my keys), Gollum picked up a ring and I read Zechariah about three weeks after reading Esther: whose name in Hebrew is of course Hadassah.

Now, a great deal of my theory is dependent upon the dates for these two books, so let it be said from the outset that I believe Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther to have been contemporaries, and I think they were shortly preceded by Zechariah. I won't be defending that here; have fun tracking it down if you want.

My theory in brief: the events described in Esther were a fulfillment of the prophecies of Zechariah 2:6-13.

The ramifications of this (so far as an interpretation of Zechariah is concerned) aren't really all that great, but are kind of interesting. First, Zechariah and Ezekiel are strongly linked (Ezekiel 36's new covenant and Zechariah 3's High Priest is one of the more obvious correlations), so if this link is carried forward, it would quite possibly link the armies of Gog and Magog to the Agogite (from the Amalekites) son of Esau, Haman (see Ezekiel 39:11: Hamon-Gog and Haman are obviously very similar linguistically). Second, the "wall of fire" that the Lord will be around Israel in Zechariah 2:5 is exemplified by an arrogant, pragmatic pagan ruler.

There is more there, but I need to buttress the theory before I build it any higher.

Blessings,
JB

Defensio

I finally realized, while listening to mind-numbing lectures on every possible hospital procedure, that Goodreads has a "Blog your review" option. So, uh... Yeah. Sorry about that.