Truth Magazine

By Harry Osborne

Over the past week as this article is written, America has been introduced to the now infamous “dimpled chads” from ballots here in Florida. Those of us who voted by punch ballot in Florida were expressly instructed to make sure the chad was removed, but that clear instruction was somehow dismissed. Canvassing boards in three counties have stepped in to divine the intent of the voters by these dimpled chads. Hence, a few people are trying to determine who is our next President on the basis of faint marks on ballots rather than by clear votes.

With each ballot, the counters must ask whether the mark was made by one intending it as a vote, by one who drew back the stylus intending not to vote, by a slip of the voter’s hand or by an act of the counter. In any case, the mark would look the same. Yet, some are saying that all dimples must be counted as votes, at least when in the column of one candidate. True, the voter cannot be called upon to express such intent, but these diviners of intent assure us that they know. True, these dimpled chads would not be there in the first place if the voter had followed instructions. Nonetheless, we are assured the intention of the voter must be interpreted rather than his action.

All of this reminded me of the similar process undertaken over the past few years by some brethren who have found various things which they assure us were intended to be in Romans 14, though not clearly stated. Yes, we have among brethren the diviners of dimpled chads in Romans 14. They claim to be the diviners of divine intent regardless of the clear instruction given in the passage. These doctors of divine dimplology have assembled their collective wisdom to set forth their edicts on the basis of subjective chad readings. As might be expected, they have found the votes for an ever increasing “area of tolerance” in the mutilated ballots of Scripture.

Dimpled Chad #1: Some Doctrinal Errors

For the past ten years or more, some brethren have sought to provide for an “area of tolerance” of some doctrinal errors under the provisions of Romans 14. Brethren seeking to uphold the truth have noted that this passage cannot be used legitimately to provide for doctrinal errors. Romans 14 was written to address two main points:

First, the chapter addressed some brethren who believed it was wrong to eat meat and some who believed that it was mandatory to observe certain days. It is probable that both views were based upon regulations of Old Testament law thought to be still binding under the Gospel. These people are seen as the “weak” of the context. They are clearly corrected by Paul when told that God received the meat eater in his practice (v. 4), that the practice may be continued by one who is “fully assured in his own mind” (v. 5), that each practice was “unto the Lord” (v. 6), and that the practice was “good” or “pure” (vv. 16, 20). Thus, they had no right to condemn what God accepted.

Second, the inspired writer addressed another group as the “strong” who understood that Old Testament regulations on these matters were no longer binding. This group did not believe that others must eat meat, nor did they forbid the observing of days. They did, however, understand that such matters were in a realm of activity neither commanded nor forbidden, but were allowed as legitimate area of liberty since the practices themselves were indifferent to God. The “strong” are instructed not to insist upon their right to exercise such liberty to the destruction of the “weak.”

Those seeking a broader application of Romans 14 have told us that the inspired writer did not instruct the readers to “settle the issue on the basis of which was right or wrong.” They have come up with subjective rules as to which doctrinal differences are “included” and which are “excluded.” The truth of it is that no doctrinal error is included in Romans 14, but all are excluded. The pattern for dealing with doctrinal error is found in other passages (2 John 9-11; Rom. 16:17; 2 Tim. 2:16-18). The Scripture is plain. We have no authority to insert doctrinal error into the realm of authorized liberty defined in Romans 14. The  dimpled chad of doctrinal error must be thrown out!

Dimpled Chad #2: Sinful Practices of the Conscientious Individual

Another dimpled chad thought to extend the total of things included in Romans 14 is the effort to include some individual practices of sin in the scope of the passage. Of course, these brethren have told us that individual sins which are specified should not count, but sins not specified and about which there is doubt should count. One brother expressed it as follows in an article concerning Romans 14:

It should be observed, however, that not all individual matters fall into this area of tolerance. None of us would be willing to tolerate lying, stealing, murder, or any specified sin (clearly established) regardless of who or how many were involved. Yet, there comes a time when men of knowledge, who are conscientious, differ over whether or not a transgression is involved in the action in question. Such are comparable to the differences in our text.

Do you understand the implication of such statements? Murder is a specified sin. Abortion is not specified, but stands condemned under the same principle. If “men of knowledge, who are conscientious, differ over whether or not a transgression is involved” in abortion, should it be tolerated per Romans 14? Drunkenness is a specified sin. However, social drinking is not specified, but is implicitly condemned in Scripture (1 Pet. 4:3). If “men of knowledge, who are conscientious, differ over whether or not a transgression is involved” in social drinking, should it be tolerated among us? Some men held to be conscientious are now teaching that we all would condemn immodest dress, but they say we cannot be sure modern swim wear and cheerleader outfits are really immodest. Some argue that lasciviousness is specifically condemned, but modern dancing is not specified as lasciviousness in Scripture. Hence, they tell us, we ought to tolerate such activity without making it a test of fellowship.

With the opening of the flood gate to tolerate sin, more applications have been made. Some “men of knowledge, who are conscientious, differ over whether or not a transgression is involved” if one divorces without scriptural cause and remarries before baptism. Other “men of knowledge, who are conscientious, differ over whether or not a transgression is involved” in the remarriage of the guilty party. Should we admit one or both of these into our area of tolerance on a dimpled chad reading of Matthew 19 or 1 Corinthians 7? However well respected and widely accepted those justifying such sinful practice might be, the word of God gives but one exception whereby one may lawfully put away a spouse and marry another (Matt. 19:9). Neither the teacher nor the practitioner of such sin may be rightly received among faithful saints. The dimpled chad of sinful practices, individual or otherwise, must be thrown out!
Dimpled Chad #3: Nebulous Matters, 
Gray Areas & Matters Lacking Clarity
The efforts by some brethren to extend the total of things covered in Romans 14 to include nebulous, gray chads has uncanny parallel to the current political efforts. Our diviners of ballot chad seem to be going by the rule, “When in doubt, count it.” Forget the responsibility to see clear evidence of a vote — any mark however vague is said to count. Our spiritual cherubs of chad go by much the same rule. “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21) has been replaced with “question all passages, tolerate that which can be subjectively classified as lacking in clarity.”

In order to make room for this growing gray area, we are told that Romans 14 addressed “nebulous matters among them.” Ed Harrell began the current effort to extend this area of tolerance by identifying error taught on divorce and remarriage as a matter lacking “clarity.” He urged the continued fellowship of one teaching such error. From that point, the listed of “doubtful,” “nebulous” and “gray” matters has continued to increase. As noted earlier, moral sins such as immodest dress, social drinking, dancing and gambling on the state lottery have been put in this area by some. Of course, some brethren have argued for years that no clear passage exists to mandate attendance on Sunday night, Wednesday night, special classes or gospel meetings. Thus, why not throw them into the area of tolerance? The list could go on and on.

And where has this growing pile of nebulous chad led us? It has led us to the point that learned brethren teaching young people the Bible in college classes and traveling seminars cannot be sure what the meaning of “day” is. Amazing! Nor can they be certain that “the worlds have been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen hath not been made out of things which appear” (Heb. 11:3). They say it could be the worlds came from the Big Bang. They are not sure whether man and woman were created at “the beginning of the creation” or nearer our end of time (see Mark 10:6). They cannot tell whether God “spake and it was done; He commanded and it stood fast” or whether the physical world is the result of billions of years of uniformitarian change (see Ps. 33:8-9).

God says his word can and must be understood (Eph. 5:17). If we keep our focus on the truth as commanded, exemplified and necessarily implied in Scripture, we will avoid the pitfalls of spiritual chad divination. The word of God fully instructs and corrects us that we might come to completeness in Christ (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Let us stick to the divine oracles rather than justifying a growing area of tolerance on the basis of manufacturing a mandate from the misuse of Romans 14.

2302 Windsor Oaks Ave., Lutz, Florida 33549

By Larry Ray Hafley

“How Can I Have A Happy New Year?” 

1. Hope for good fortune. “I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all” (Eccl. 9:11).  

2. Quit doing the same dumb things you have been doing. Ungodliness, worldly lusts and sinful living lead to unhappiness — “many foolish and hurtful lusts” drown men in despair and destruction (1 Tim. 6:9). “Who hath woe? Who hath sorrow? Who hath contentions? Who hath complaining? Who hath wounds without cause? Who hath redness of eyes?” Sinners, that’s who (Prov. 23:29).  

3. Sincerely strive to bring joy and happiness to others (1 Cor. 10:24; Phil. 2:3, 4). Please others rather than yourself. Go out of your way to warm the hearts of the sick and lonely. If you do, a happy new year is assured for you.  

4. Learn to be content with such things as you have. “For I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therein to be content” (Phil. 4:11).  Riches from without will not produce peace from within.  

5. Resolve to go to heaven and take others with you. Have you ever seen a true Christian, diligently seeking to go to heaven, who is miserable? Me, neither.

6. “For, He that would love life, And see good days, Let him refrain his tongue from evil, And his lips that they speak no guile: And let him turn away from evil, and do good; Let him seek peace, and pursue it” (1 Pet. 3:10, 11).  

Conclusion 

Remember that sorrow and sadness come to all alike. There is “a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance” (Eccl 3:4). However, if we will apply the principles above, our lives should be holier and happier.     

By Tom Hamilton

Just like the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Tell el-Amarna letters were discovered accidentally by a local resident. In 1887, an Egyptian peasant woman was digging in the ruins of el-Amarna for the nitrogen-rich soil that results from the decomposition of mud bricks used in ancient building sites. She came upon hundreds of clay tablets written in the T-shaped markings of Akkadian (or Babylonian) cuneiform, the language of Mesopotamia, instead of the hieroglyphic writing of Egypt.

The explanation for this linguistic curiosity, as well as the importance of the tablets themselves, lies in the history of el-Amarna. This is the modern designation for the ancient Egyptian capital Akhetaton, built by Pharaoh Amenhotep IV (ca. 1369-1353 B.C.) some 200 miles south of modern Cairo on the east bank of the Nile. For a brief time in the fourteenth century B.C., this city was the center of the Egyptian government. Because cuneiform had become the language of international correspondence, much like English is today, this was the language used on official government correspondence sent to or received from other countries. There was even a school for scribes in Akhetaton to train them in cuneiform, and a few of the surviving clay tablets are not letters at all, but practice exercises for the scribes.

It is interesting to note the role Amenhotep IV and his capital city Anketaton played in Egyptian history. This pharaoh may be remembered as the husband of the famed Queen Nefertiti, his own sister, as well as being the pharaoh who imposed monotheism on the Egyptians in the form of worshiping the one and only sun god of Aton. This is why the capital city he built was named Akhetaton and also why he changed his own name to Akhenaton. His preoccupation with such internal religious reforms and a corresponding indifference to foreign affairs has often been cited as a cause of the deterioration of Egypt’s influence and control on the borders of her empire at this time, a situation which is widely reflected in the Amarna tablets. Upon Amenhotep’s untimely death, the powerful cult of the god Amon reasserted itself and Amenhotep’s attempted religious revolution failed, his capital city was destroyed and abandoned. The final victory of the Amon cult is seen in the change in name of Amenhotep’s son-in-law, from Tutankaton to the now famous Tutankamon.

Contents of the Amarna Tablets

Out of the 379 Amarna tablets that survive, 349 are official letters, presumably being just a fraction of the vast government archives that would have been kept at Akhetaton. These tablets are examples of the diplomatic correspondence of pharaohs Amenhotep III (ca. 1398-1361 B.C.) and Amenhotep IV (ca. 1369-1353 B.C.) with foreign kings of other nations or Egyptian officials and subjects in Palestine and Syria. About 40 of these tablets are letters between pharaoh’s court and the courts of nations on a comparatively equal footing with Egypt: Cyprus (biblical Elishah), Assyria, the Kassites of Babylonia, the Hurrians (biblical Horites) of Mitanni, and the Hittites of Hatti. The remaining 300 tablets were written by Canaanite scribes in Palestine, Phoenicia, and southern Syria, who wrote on behalf of either the regional vassal princes subject to Egypt or minor Egyptian administrative officials in these same areas. Over half of these tablets were written to or from Palestine itself, offering valuable insights into the economic, political, and military conditions in Palestine at this time.

The correspondence of Rib-Addi, vassal prince of Byblos, is the most extensive, comprising almost 70 of the tablets, and is also typical of the content of the letters. This ruler repeatedly writes to Amenhotep III urgently requesting military aid in defending himself against a renegade fellow vassal. Judging from the increasing urgency of the requests and the decreasing territory Rib-Addi controlled, it appears that the Egyptians were indifferent to the situation in Palestine and beyond. The inability or unwillingness of Egypt to support its far-flung empire only served to encourage more rivalry and instability in the region. The petty city-states engaged in constant political intrigue, internal feuding, and open aggression against one another.
Importance of the Amarna Tablets
The Amarna tablets have served to make the Amarna age one of the best known and most extensively documented periods of ancient history. These tablets reveal the period to be an unprecedented time of international diplomacy and of cultural exchange. Historians are able to glean many insights into the structure of the entire Fertile Crescent, from Mesopotamia to Egypt.

Likewise, students of the languages of the ancient world have also been able to learn a great deal from the Amarna tablets. While the predominant language of the tablets is Akkadian, and therefore very helpful to students of that language, the tablets also reflect elements of the Amorite, Egyptian, Hittite, Hurrian, and Canaanite languages. For the students of the Bible, knowledge of the Semitic language of the Canaanites helps to further scholarly understanding of the Hebrew in which the Old Testament was written.

The final significance of the Amarna tablets depends upon their relationship to what the Old Testament has to say about this same time period. Unfortunately, there is no consensus among scholars, even “conservative” Bible scholars, as to what that relationship is. It is to this final question that we must now turn our attention.

Relationship of the OT to the Amarna Tablets

The Amarna tablets were the first documents to call scholars’ attention to a group of people called the Habiru (or ‘Apiru), whose name bears a striking similarity to the name “Hebrew.” This has led to much study and discussion of the possible connections between these two groups, or of the identification of the Habiru in the Amarna tablets as the Hebrews. In the Amarna tablets, the Habiru appear as nomadic marauders who are allied with one vassal prince against another. They are always spoken of in a derogatory manner, and it seems that the name Habiru itself was a pejorative term, at least as it is used in the Amarna tablets. Subsequent study has located references to these Habiru in Sumerian, Egyptian, Ugaritic, and Canaanite texts ranging from 2500 to 1200 B.C. In general, these people were viewed as politically, economically, and socially inferior troublemakers who easily abandoned legitimate activities and became roving bands of outlaws, raiding and pillaging for a living.

The whole Habiru-Hebrew problem is too complex to go into here, but it must be acknowledged that there might be a connection between the two, although it is unlikely that the two terms should be equated. It is more likely that some Hebrews would have been considered as Habiru, but not all Habiru would have been Hebrews. As the question relates to the Amarna tablets specifically, the question is whether the references to the Habiru in these tablets refer to the Hebrews. There are three basic approaches to this question: (1) The Habiru have no connection with the Hebrews because the Amarna tablets do not have any connection with biblical history. With the Hebrews under Jacob leaving Palestine for Egypt before the events of the Amarna tablets and the exodus occurring after the events of the Amarna tablets, these tablets describe a situation otherwise unknown in Palestine during the 430 years Israel was in Egypt. (2) The Habiru are the Hebrews, and the Amarna tablets are an archaeological confirmation of the occupation of Canaan under Joshua, describing the Canaanites’ viewpoint as Joshua and the Israelites conquer Canaan. (3) The Habiru may or may not refer to the Hebrews, because the Amarna tablets describe the situation in Palestine during the early period of the Judges. The Habiru may be Israelites fighting against their Canaanite oppressors, or they may be bands of outlaws referred to in Judges (9:3; 11:3). Obviously, the whole question comes down to how one dates the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. If one adopts a fifteenth century date for the exodus, the Amarna tablets obviously describe conditions in Palestine after the exodus. If one adopts a thirteenth century date for the exodus, the Amarna tablets would describe the situation in Palestine while the Israelites were still in Egyptian bondage.

It is fair to say that those who adopt a thirteenth century date for the exodus (i.e., ca. 1290 B.C.) do so because of the weight they attribute to the archaeological evidence. For example, the nations of Moab and Edom, which Israel needed to circumvent (Num. 20-21), are asserted not to have existed before the thirteenth century. Additional archaeological excavations are thought to show appropriate destruction levels for the later date, or they fail to demonstrate evidence of either destruction or population for the earlier date. The only real biblical evidence adduced is the reference to the city Raamses in Exodus 1:11, suggesting a connection with Ramses II of the thirteenth century.

It should be obvious that the archaeological evidence is, at best, ambiguous and results in arguing from silence. More extensive excavations, additional discoveries, and more exact identifications of ancient sites might very well result in a modification of current views. In addition, it seems more difficult to fit the biblical evidence into a thirteenth century date for the exodus. It is hard to reconcile Moses’ long sojourn in the wilderness (Exod. 2:15-23) with the short reign of Seti I, if he is proposed as the pharaoh of the oppression. Likewise, it would appear that the pharaoh of the exodus drowned with his army (Exod. 14-15), while the proposed pharaoh of the exodus, Ramses II, lived for a very long time after the supposed date for the exodus. Finally, the testimony of 1 Kings 6:1 would place the exodus around 1440 B.C., and there doesn’t appear to be any compelling reason to take the numbers given in a figurative or accommodating way. The fifteenth century date for the exodus from Egypt and conquest of Palestine also allows time for the 300 years mentioned in Judges 11:26.
Even if we adopt a fifteenth century date for the exodus, it is difficult to correlate exactly the Amarna tablets with biblical history. We know that the Amarna tablets date from the reigns of Amenhotep III and IV, but we cannot be certain about the precise dates of their reigns and, therefore, their relation to Joshua or the judges. However, while the Amarna tablets often refer to an impending military threat and urgently appeal to Egypt to send help to her loyal subjects, the requests for reinforcements are small. Often it is thought that fifty men, or in one case as few as ten, were sufficient to reinforce the garrisons. This does not appear to describe sufficiently the threat Israel posed for the inhabitants of Palestine during the conquest under Joshua. However, during the early period of the judges, when Israel was divided, beset by foreign oppressors, and plagued by roving bands of outlaws, we see the same type of conditions described in the Amarna tablets. Perhaps the Amarna tablets give us insight into the enemy’s point of view during this period of biblical history.

thhamilton@home.com

By David McClister

One of the most fascinating archaeological finds relating to the Bible is the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III. It is a four-sided column of black limestone inscribed with words (in the cuneiform alphabet) and pictures. The Assyrian king Shalmaneser III (who reigned 858-824 B.C.) had it made to record his achievements through the first 31 years of his reign. Austen Layard unearthed it in 1846 during his now-famous discovery of Nimrud (Calah), just south of the capital city of Nineveh. Shalmaneser’s monument was probably set up in a public place where people passing by could see it and take note of the king’s accomplishments. It was, in effect, the ancient Assyrian equivalent of a billboard. The obelisk stands about six feet tall and is now kept in the British Museum. Copies can be seen in other museums, such as the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago.

What is so amazing about this ancient monument is that it both mentions and depicts a person from the Bible. In the picture accompanying this article, which is a detail from one of the panels on the obelisk, the person bowing down is none other than Jehu, king of Israel, and the person before whom Jehu is bowing is the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III. We are sure that this is indeed Jehu because of the inscription underneath the picture panel, which reads “tribute of Jehu son of Omri” (Jehu was not Omri’s physical son, but the word “son” is here used in the sense of “successor”). This is the only artifact from biblical times that contains a representation of a biblical character. While the picture is stylized and therefore probably not intended to be an accurate depiction of Jehu’s appearance, it is nonetheless striking.

A little background knowledge may help us understand the significance of this artifact. First, you may recall that Jehu was the man God chose to replace the wicked family of Ahab of the house of Omri. Elisha the prophet was commanded to anoint Jehu to be king over Israel in 1 Kings 19, and the command was carried out in 2 Kings 9 (841 B.C.). With the appointment as king came a command from God that Jehu destroy the house of Ahab. In this connection, Jehu is perhaps most remembered for killing the wicked queen Jezebel, the wife of Ahab and a Baal worshiper from Phoenicia. He also killed Joram, Ahab’s son who had taken the throne of Israel. Jehu was far from done, however. He killed Ahaziah, the king of Judah, and his relatives, and he killed the 70 sons of Ahab who lived in Samaria and put their heads in two piles at the city gate. Then, using trickery, he killed all the worshipers of Baal. This killing spree is sometimes called “the purge of Jehu.”

While we may be repulsed by all this bloodshed, it was God’s judgment upon the wicked house of Ahab, and it was just. God was pleased that Jehu carried out his orders (2 Kings 10:30). However, Jehu did not please God in everything. Jehu allowed the golden calves, set up by Jeroboam, to remain. He did much to bring Israel back to God, but he did not finish the job. Apparently Jehu did only enough to secure his position on the throne of the northern kingdom. For his failure to cleanse the kingdom of idolatry God allowed Israel’s enemy, the Syrians, to rise up against Israel. It is probably in the context of Jehu’s military problems that we should interpret Shalmaneser’s monument.

The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III records an event that is not mentioned in the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible mention Jehu going before the king of Assyria and bowing down before him. However, there is every good reason to believe that Jehu did exactly this. When Jehu was anointed he was encamped at Ramoth-gilead (2 Kings 9:1-6), indicating that control of this border town between Israel and Syria was still being contested. The Syrians had another problem, however, and that was the rising military strength of Assyria directly to their east. In the same year that Jehu came to the throne in Israel (841 B.C.) the Assyrians marched westward into Syria. According to Shalmaneser’s records the Syrians suffered heavy losses, but we also know that Shalmaneser was not able to take Damascus. In this context there are at least three scenarios that would have prompted Jehu to bow down before the Assyrian monarch: (1) Jehu saw that Syria (which was a buffer between himself and Assyria) was losing the war with Assyria and that he would not be able to withstand the coming Assyrian advance, so he submitted to their superior military might in order to avoid conflict (which also left his enemy, the Syrians, alone to face the Assyrians), or (2) Jehu may have submitted to the Assyrians in return for help against the Syrians (cf. a somewhat similar tactic by king Asa in 1 Kings 15:17-22; but this is the least likely scenario), or (3) Jehu submitted when the Assyrian army finally pushed into northern Palestine (Shalmaneser says that he took tribute not only from Jehu, but from Tyre and Sidon as well). Either way, it seems that Jehu (wisely) never entered into any anti-Assyrian alliance with Syria and that he probably submitted to Assyria to keep his throne. This is what is being depicted on the obelisk — Jehu bowing before the king of Assyria, recognizing his power, and presenting his nation’s tribute payment. 

The political effect of Jehu’s action would have been that while Jehu may have saved his kingdom from destruction (for the moment), he weakened his kingdom by obligating Israel to hefty annual tribute payments to Assyria. His capitulation to Assyria also increased Syria’s animosity toward Israel and the king of Syria, Hazael, apparently after the Assyrians withdrew, vented his anger against Jehu and captured all of Israel’s transjordan territory (2 Kings 9:32f). These negative effects only compounded the political crisis Jehu already faced. When he killed off the house of Ahab (including Jezebel), he lost favorable relations with the Phoenicians (Jezebel was a Phoeni- cian), and the Moabites had already successfully rebelled from Israelite subjugation under Ahaziah (2 Kings 1:1) about ten years earlier, which meant that Moab’s tribute payments, which once boosted Israel’s economy, had ceased. So Jehu created enemies to his north, he lost his territories to the east, and had lost control of the Moabites to the south. It would not be until the reign of Jeroboam II that Israel would recover.

There are two brief lessons to consider. The first is about the historical trustworthiness of the Bible. The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III proves that there really was a man named Jehu who was the king of Israel, just as the Bible says there was, and that he lived in the time period which the Bible reports. The name of Hazael, the king of Syria at that time — who is also mentioned in the Bible — also appears on the Assyrian king’s monument. The Bible’s stories are true, they really happened, and the biblical record is accurate.

The second lesson is a moral one, and has to do with our influence on the world around us, how others see us. I have always thought it regrettable that here we have an actual picture of a person in the Bible — and what is he doing? He is making a fool of himself! Here was the king of Israel. With God behind him, there was nothing he could not have accomplished. God would have fought for Israel, and Israel could have risen to great power and blessing. But Jehu took advantage of none of this. In times of trouble Jehu looked for human help rather than looking to God for help. This scene, carved in rock and preserved for all the world to see, makes me think about the influence that we, as God’s people today, should have. How do others see us? Do they see us like they saw Jehu — catering to the world and bowing down (figuratively) before worldly people, surrendering ourselves to them and their lifestyle? If all that ever remained of our lives in the records of the world was that we served the world instead of God, what kind of legacy have we left?

Whenever I see this panel from Shalmaneser’s monument, I am both happy and sad. I am happy to know that the biblical record has been proven to be true and accurate, but I am sad to see that it shows one of God’s people acting in a faithless way. Let us live so that we are not remembered like Jehu was.

2210 71st St. W., Bradenton, Florida 34209