Hilkiah and those the king had sent with him went to speak to the prophet Huldah, who was the wife of Shallum son of Tokhath, the son of Hasrah, keeper of the wardrobe. She lived in Jerusalem, in the New Quarter. – 2 Chronicles 34:22

Today's Scripture Reading (June 18, 2026): 2 Chronicles 34

English Theologian, N.T. Wright argues that everything in the Bible is expressed in terms of cooperative opposites. The idea is that from the very creation of the universe, we see essential pairings of opposites. Day makes necessary night. Water and dry land are mutually defining. In the mind of Wright, this is one principle that argues against the idea of gay marriage. God's design from the very beginning is that cooperative opposites are what is critical in any endeavor. In the concept of marriage, those cooperative opposites must be "one man and one woman," or what we have come to call traditional marriage.

I am not convinced that Wright is correct in his argument about marriage. Even in same-sex marriages, the participants are usually quite different. However, that does not mean he is wrong about the importance of both men and women in the world in which we live. Maybe one problem within contemporary feminism lies in the concept of gender equality, which often argues that we can do the same things. I believe strongly in a radical equality between the sexes, but that does not mean that men and women are the same. We aren't. Men and women, even outside the concept of marriage, present a necessary, complementary opposite in life. Both men and women are required to accomplish societal goals that extend beyond marriage and reproduction. Men and women approach problems differently. One is not better than the other; they are just different. And the best solution usually results when both are involved in the process.

The Book of Kings offers us another example of cooperative opposites in the story of the prophetess Huldah. Huldah is remembered as one of the seven prophetesses of Judaism, alongside Sarah, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Abigail, and Esther. But Huldah had a more famous male relative. His name was Jeremiah. According to tradition, Huldah and Jeremiah were two sides of the same coin, or, as Wright might put it, cooperative opposites. Jeremiah and Huldah performed very similar functions in the religious life of the day. We know that Jeremiah, often nicknamed "The Weeping Prophet," taught a message of repentance to Judah during the last days of the nation. Jeremiah begged Judah to return to God. But it seems that his ministry was mostly to the men of the city. Huldah set herself to the same task with the women of the city, pleading that they would return to God before it was too late.

Huldah is also thought to have been an important public educator of her day. It might be that the King's delegation went to Huldah, rather than to Jeremiah, because they believed she might be more inclined to respond with compassion and intercede before God for them, rather than with the condemnation they expected from Jeremiah. And their decision to take this new document, likely the Book of Deuteronomy, to Huldah made her the first person to declare a document scripture, as she treated the newly found text as the authoritative word of God.  

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Zephaniah 1

See Also 2 Kings 22:14

She said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Tell the man who sent you to me … - 2 Kings 22:15

Today's Scripture Reading (June 17, 2026): 2 Kings 22

Queen Elizabeth was not referred to as "Your Majesty" by everyone. In public, royal rules will always prevail, and what you need to remember is that the first time you address King Charles, the only phrase that should come out of your mouth is "Your Majesty." If the conversation continues, then it might be acceptable to refer to him as "Sir," but no other name should be used. In private, though, you might hear him referred to by some other names, although definitely never to be echoed by you. For Elizabeth, Charles's mother, there were a few nicknames you might have heard her called in private. The occasional "Lillibet" might have been heard from some very close friends of the former Queen. Of all of the nicknames possessed by the former sovereign, "Lillibet" is probably the best known. According to tradition, it was the way that she pronounced "Elizabeth" when she was young. Prince William, when he was young and before he got the hang of saying "Granny," apparently called her "Garry." And I am quite okay with that (and I gave the nickname my spelling rather than the traditional "Gary").

However, there was another, even more private name, for Queen Elizabeth. Prince Philip had a name for her that only he was allowed to use in her presence or anywhere else when referring to her; that name was "Cabbage." The nickname was adapted from the French expression "mon petit chou' which translates to "my little cabbage." But only Prince Philip had the right to call Elizabeth by that name. There was not, nor will there ever be, another person in the world who would be allowed to refer to the late Queen as their "Cabbage."

So, what if I decided to risk it? Right here on this public forum, what if I decided that I wanted to refer to the former Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms as "my Cabbage?" I am a Canadian by birth, which means that Elizabeth was my Queen. So, what if I decided to address the mother of my reigning King as "My Cabbage" instead of "Your Majesty?" The reality is that, regardless of the message's content, using that nickname to refer to the late Queen would be wildly inappropriate. Royalists would have the right to condemn me; after all, I was not being considerate of her former position as a world leader and the most prominent member of the British Royal Family for over half a century. I am not Prince Philip. I do not have the right to call Queen Elizabeth "My Cabbage," or even attempt to greet her with the full French expression, "mon petit chou."

With this understanding in mind, we need to read Huldah's greeting to the delegation sent to her by King Josiah. Huldah's address to the men is direct. "Tell the man who sent you …" Later, Huldah will refer to "the man" as the King of Judah, but in this initial greeting, he is not the King; he is simply a man.

Josiah's delegation would probably have been as offended by Huldah's greeting as someone close to Queen Elizabeth would have been by my use of the nickname "the Cabbage" to address "Her Majesty." But there is a purpose in Huldah's greeting. Her use of "the man" to refer to King Josiah emphasizes that, in God's eyes, the King holds no special place. He is just like any other man who came to talk to this prophetess.  

We see differences between people. But in the eyes of God, we are all just the same as King Josiah; we are all sinners, and we are all only men and women requiring His grace and mercy.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: 2 Chronicles 34

He sacrificed his children in the fire in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, practiced divination and witchcraft, sought omens, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the LORD, arousing his anger. – 2 Chronicles 33:6

Today's Scripture Reading (June 16, 2026): 2 Chronicles 33

Life isn't just about your actions. We need to put our beliefs into practice, but actions also need to arise from the core of who we are. We are not designed to be simply actors on the stage, going through the motions and reading the lines provided for us. There is supposed to be a belief system in our lives that underpins everything we do. And when that belief system is missing, it is noticeable by almost everyone around us.

So it shouldn't surprise us that Hezekiah seems to be concerned about the details of his own reign, not so much about those who followed him. After all, Hezekiah waited until it was almost too late to marry and produce an heir to follow him. His son took it a step further, doing what Hezekiah would have thought unthinkable: he actively sacrificed his own children, sacrificing the nation's future, to the gods to ensure his own reign would succeed. While the actions of these two kings may have been very different, they stemmed from a very similar core belief. The only difference was that Manasseh put that core belief into action.

Too many people seem to hold the belief that Christianity is about following the rules. It is about training ourselves to do the right things. Christianity is about denying our passions and living disciplined lives. Except, I am not sure if that is true. I mean, I am not a disciplined person; I hate rules, and when I do the right thing, it often seems incidental.

What if Jesus died on a cross, not so we could play a game and follow the rules, but so we could be successful as we live our lives? What if his purpose was not that we would spend our lives denying our passions (and not having fun), but giving us passion for things that would strengthen our communities and us?  What if what he really wanted to do was to change what existed at the core of our lives? What if his plan was for us to spend our lives not denying our passions but letting them loose? What if …?

I believe that the what-ifs are the truth. God's purpose is to change us on the inside so that what flows from us glorifies God and encourages the people in our circles of influence. We can actually be all that we were meant to be because God has done a work in our deepest places. That is what I believe God wants from us. But following the rules will never get us there, and neither will sacrificing our children on an altar dedicated to our needs. Because the future needs them to follow our example, and be all that God needs them to be as well.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: 2 Kings

See Also 2 Kings 21:6

He rebuilt the high places his father Hezekiah had destroyed; he also erected altars to Baal and made an Asherah pole, as Ahab king of Israel had done. He bowed down to all the starry hosts and worshiped them. – 2 Kings 21:3

Today's Scripture Reading (June 15, 2026): 2 Kings 21

"It was the best of times; it was the worst of times." With these words, Charles Dickens launches his story about the French Revolution, "A Tale of Two Cities." The words highlight the paradoxical nature of the human experience. And sometimes it seems that the best of times and the worst of times are separated by the thinnest of margins. Consider the men who historians often argue are the best and the worst American Presidents. On the best side, Abraham Lincoln consistently ranks as the best of American Presidents. Lincoln is praised for his leadership throughout the American Civil War and his abolition of slavery. Abraham Lincoln is a man who was made, as maybe we all are, by the circumstances of his life. Would Abraham have presided over the abolition of slavery had he been President twenty years earlier? I don't think so. And while one of the great tragedies of American history was Lincoln's assassination, the assassination stopped the Lincoln story before Reconstruction. And no one knows how Reconstruction might have changed his legacy.

So maybe it's no surprise that the two worst Presidents are the two men who served before and after Abraham Lincoln. The worst President of the United States is consistently James Buchanan. I think there might be a few other candidates for this position, but Buchanan keeps rising to the top because of the way he handled American Society in the years leading up to the Civil War. Buchanan believed that history would vindicate him, but that vindication has never really materialized. He has been consistently criticized for his unwillingness or inability to react to the Southern States, which were threatening to secede from the Union, setting the stage for the Civil War. It is as if someone else were President; maybe the Civil War wouldn't have happened. And I am not sure that is true either.

But Buchanan's competition for the title of worst American President is often Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Abraham Lincoln. In all fairness, Johnson had been Lincoln's Vice-President for less than two months before Lincoln's assassination. Still, Johnson had the privilege of serving as President for most of Abraham Lincoln's second term (April 15, 1865 - March 4, 1869), and his legacy remains that he failed Reconstruction by blocking civil rights for the newly freed slaves. Together, Buchanan, Lincoln, and Johnson served as Presidents of the United States from March 4, 1857, to March 4, 1869, some of the most volatile years in the history of the Union. They were the best and the worst of times and of Presidents.

I sometimes wonder why the author of Kings chose not to compare the reign of King Manasseh with that of his father, Hezekiah, and his grandfather, Ahaz. Here, we once again seem to have a story of the worst and the best of the Kings of Judah in two consecutive generations. But instead, the author of Kings, possibly Jeremiah, chooses to compare Manasseh to the best of the Judean Kings, Hezekiah, with the worst of the Israelite or Samaritan Kings, Ahab. And while 2 Kings omits part of the story, it seems that Manasseh competed with both of these kings. For part of his reign, he was as bad as Ahaz and his wife, Jezebel, of Israel. And while he was never as good as his father, Hezekiah, he did try to follow his father's example later in his reign.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: 2 Chronicles 33

All because of the wanton lust of a prostitute, alluring, the mistress of sorceries, who enslaved nations by her prostitution and peoples by her witchcraft. – Nahum 3:4

Today's Scripture Reading (June 14, 2026): Nahum 3

If we take the Bible seriously, then every part of creation grew out of a common point in human history. Maybe you don't accept the story of Adam and Eve as a historical account. Still, even if the story of Adam and Eve is only a legend, the human race still likely developed from a single point, likely in southern Iraq, and spread to the rest of the world from there, which means that at some point in the past, we all shared a belief in some common deity. Some argue that the monotheism of the Abrahamic religions grew out of various polytheistic faiths, but I believe the reverse is true. In the beginning, we had an understanding of God, even if it was very vague. I had a conversation with a Hindu believer a few years ago, and she asked me if I believed in one God. I said I did, and her reply has stuck with me. "My faith teaches me that there are many gods, but deep down, I think you are right. There is only one."

Paul, in his letter to the Romans, would seem to agree with this shift from monotheism to polytheism.

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles (Romans 1:20-23).

Prostitution and harlotry in the prophetic writings are often code words for turning away from faith. Maybe we wouldn't expect that a foreign nation could turn away from God, but we need to be reminded that the story of Jonah tells of a revival in the Assyrian Capital as the people turned away from their national gods. But the revival was short-lived. The people turned to God in Jonah's presence, but fell away since the prophet had left the city. Their sin was not just that they turned away from the monotheistic God to whom Jonah had pointed them, but that they had spread their false religion to the nations, spreading lies against the truth Jonah had shared with them.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: 2 Kings 21

The chariots storm through the streets, rushing back and forth through the squares. They look like flaming torches; they dart about like lightning. – Nahum 2:4

Today's Scripture Reading (June 13, 2026): Nahum 2

Over the years, I have spent a lot of time in traffic. I don't think I am predisposed to road rage, though I have seen a lot of it over the years on the road. Where I am vulnerable is when people get mad at me, especially if I have no idea why they are angry. I remember one trip home a few years ago when a guy in a big truck decided to pull a U-turn on a residential street. I came around the corner to find the road blocked by this guy and his truck. My response was to pull over to one side of the road; I admit that when I made the turn, I was closer to the middle of the road than I should have been. In my defense, I didn't know a truck was going to be blocking my way. So I pulled over to let the truck do its thing.

I thought everything was okay until the driver pulled up beside me and gave me the universal one-finger greeting for hello. Then he pulled over and parked. So, I parked (Do not try this at home). I got out and went over to him. I am a fairly big guy, and he was relatively small, so when I walked up to him, it was obvious that he was looking for something he could use as a weapon if things turned bad. Knowing that, I kept everything as calm as I could. I asked my new acquaintance what was wrong, and he responded that he believed I was trying to block him. I assured him that I wasn't, apologized, and then turned and went back to my vehicle. Maybe the most unnerving part of the whole confrontation was that I noticed he watched me intently until I disappeared out of sight.

Some people read this passage in Nahum and wonder if Nahum was seeing a contemporary traffic jam on the ancient streets of Nineveh. Chariots that storm through the streets looking like torches that run back and forth might be a description of a scene that any traffic camera of an urban center during rush hour might reveal. However, it is not a contemporary rush-hour scene that is being described, but rather the bedlam of Nineveh overrun by its enemies. The end of Nineveh would see armies flowing into the city from several different directions. The city and its defenses would be overwhelmed in a way that couldn't have been imagined fifty years before the fall of the city. History records that the city's end occurred in 612 B.C.E. In that year, the city was overrun, and bitter fighting raged from house to house. No place was safe. And when the fighting ended, the city was razed. The former mighty city of the Assyrians was gone, never to attain any importance ever again. 

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Nahum 3

But with an overwhelming flood he will make an end of Nineveh; he will pursue his foes into the realm of darkness. – Nahum 1:8

Today's Scripture Reading (June 12, 2026): Nahum 1

It had been about a hundred years since Jonah tried to escape going to Nineveh by making a detour to the south coast of Spain and the city of Tarshish. A century has passed since a whale swallowed Jonah and then spewed the prophet up onto the coast. It has been a hundred years since Jonah presided over a revival in Nineveh. Unfortunately, over those hundred years, the revival in Nineveh has died, and the people have returned to their evil ways. So, Nahum gets to proclaim the judgment of which Jonah could only dream.

Nahum says that "an overwhelming flood he will make an end of Nineveh" (Nahum 1:8). For the people who first heard these words, the prophecy of Nahum had to bring the minds of the people in his audience back to the time of Noah and the days of the flood that covered the earth. There is no doubt about the power of the Assyrian Empire. The Empire had itself been a metaphorical "overwhelming flood" that had dominated the known world. The Empire stretched from parts of Iran through modern-day Iraq and into Syria and Turkiye, and down through Jordan and Israel into Egypt, and even into the eastern part of Libya. And as Nahum makes this prophecy, Assyria is still strong.

But within fifty years, the nations would come together to defeat the Assyrians. It will be a "tidal wave" of opposition as the Babylonians and Persians join with other smaller powers to overcome the Empire. Not far down the road, both the Babylonians and the Persians would also have their time on the world stage before giving way to a Greek flood.

But James Boice (1938-2000) reminds us that this wasn't just a figurative flood. While it wasn't the overwhelming flood that Noah knew, there was a flood that helped to take down the Assyrian Capital.

"According to secular accounts, during the final siege of Nineveh by a rebel army of Persians, Medes, Arabians, and Babylonians, unusually heavy rains caused the rivers to flood and to undermine the city's walls, which then collapsed…the invading armies entered the city through this breach in its defenses" (James Montgomery Boice).

Jonah tried to escape his mission by taking a boat to Tarshish, but he was stopped by a storm and high waves that threatened to sink the boat he was on. It was a whale, or a big fish, that saved the prophet and threw him up onto dry ground. But the water that sank Nineveh, both figurative and literal, didn't carry a message of salvation for the people. This time, the water would carry the final vote.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Nahum 2