The Lost Texts from the Old Testament

It all began with Michael Pahl. On July 19, 2005, Michael posted on his blog a wish list of lost documents that are related to early Christianity that he would like to see and read.

This was followed by Michael Turton, who, on July 20, published his list of five texts he would like to see from early Christianity.

Then Jim Davila, also on July 20, offered his wish list of Old Testament pseudepigrapha mentioned in surviving literature from antiquity.

Then on that same day, Jim West submitted his own list of lost books that he would like to see and read.

Then, Stephen C. Carlson, with the four previous lists in hand, submitted his own list on July 20 of books that he would like to see and read.

Then, on July 24, Christopher Heard posted his list of lost texts from the Old Testament that he would like to see.

I began my blog in August 2005 but did not discover this list until today. So, even though I am very late, as “one born out of due time,” I also would like to submit my list of texts and documents from the Old Testament that I would like to see and read.

The list below is not in chronological order and is not in order of priority. In submitting my list, I am avoiding duplicating what Christopher and Jim have submitted. Therefore, here is my list of texts and documents I would like to see and read:

• The Book of the Covenant (Exodus 24:7)
• The book of remembrance about the Amalekites (Exodus 17:14)
• The book detailing the rights and duties of the king (1 Samuel 10:25)
• The book of remembrance of those who feared the Lord (Malachi 3:16)
• Elijah’s letter to Jehoram (2 Chronicles 21:12)
• A written certificate of divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1)
• Job’s signature (Job 31:35)
• The book that God wrote (Exodus 32:32)

There are many more books and texts that are mentioned in the Old Testament. If I just could see and read the eight texts listed above, I would be very happy.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Rereading 1 Samuel 13:1

The books of the Bible have come to us through the work of scribes who carefully preserved the received text.  Over a period of hundreds of years, the biblical manuscripts were copied and recopied by hand in order to preserve the traditional reading of what was considered sacred text.

No original manuscript of any of the biblical books has survived.  A group of scribes called the “Masoretes” took great care to make copies of the biblical books as accurately as possible.  However, in the process of copying from their sources, the scribes made some errors that are present in the manuscripts used today to translate the Bible.

When copying errors are found in the text, scholars make an attempt to restore the text in order to discover the probable word or words used in the original manuscript.  At times, however, in attempting to correct the text, scholars have proposed solutions that may contradict one another.  One classic example is the textual problem found in 1 Samuel 13:1.  

The Hebrew text of 1 Samuel 13:1 reads: Saul was one year old when he began to reign and he reigned over Israel two years.  It is clear that as written, the text is not right, for Saul had grown children when he became king of Israel.  It is evident that the numbers are missing in the text.

Scholars have made different attempts at restoring the text but their efforts have created more confusion.  Below are some attempts made by translators to restore the text.

The New International Version (NIV) translates 1 Samuel 13:1 as follows:
Saul was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel forty-two years.

The New American Standard Bible translates as follows:
Saul was forty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned thirty-two years over Israel.

The New English Bible translates as follows:
Saul was fifty years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel for twenty-two years.

The Modern Reader's Bible, a translation done by Richard G. Moulton translates as follows:
Saul was thirty years old when he began to reign and he reigned two years over Israel.

The American Standard Version translates as follows:
Saul was forty years old when he began to reign; and when he had reigned two years over Israel....

The King James Version translates as follows:
Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel....

In the New Testament, Acts 13:21 says that Saul reigned forty-years over Israel.

A good explanation for the length of Saul’s reign is found in John Tullock’s book, The Old Testament Story, 2nd ed. (Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1981), p.123.  Tullock wrote:

“The length of Saul’s reign is uncertain since a number is missing in the Hebrew text, which simply says, ‘he reigned . . . and two years’ (13:1).  Most scholars would say he ruled about twenty-two years.  If one takes the biblical evidence, twelve years might be more logical.  The ark was captured by the Philistines some time before Saul began to reign.  According to 1 Samuel 7:2, it was kept in Kiriath-jearim ‘some twenty years.’  It was taken to Jerusalem in the early part of David’s reign (2 Sam. 6:1-15), but David reigned for over seven years at Hebron before Jerusalem was captured (2 Sam. 5:5).  If this twenty years is to be taken literally or even as meaning around twenty years, it would seem to limit Saul’s reign to no more than twelve years.”

The different readings for the length of Saul’s reign in the translations are only possibilities.  Thus, if a translation says that Saul was 30, or 40, or 50 years old when he began to reign and then says that he reigned 42, 32, 22, or 2 years over Israel, that translation is not teaching biblical truth but educated possibilities.  The fact is, that since the numbers are contradictory, then one or all of the translations may not be presenting the right information.

This, I believe, is the biggest problem in trying to guess the numbers missing is 1 Samuel 13:1.  Since most students of the Bible only use one translation and never compare one translation against another, they believe that what the translation they are using is saying is what really happened, when in reality the translation may not reflect historical reality.

For instance, take the translation proposed by the KJV: Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel.  People reading the KJV may believe that what follows in 13:2 happened two years after Saul became king.  Other translations, such as NIV and several others, try to harmonize the Book of Acts with the text in Samuel by saying that Saul was king for forty-two years, when the length of his reign probably was much shorter.

Thus, 1 Samuel 13:1 must be reread in such a way that it preserves the dignity of the text and the historical realities related to Saul’s reign.  Lately, several translations are leaving the numbers in the text blank.  For instance, the NRSV and other translations translate as follows:

Saul was . . .  years old when he began to reign; and he reigned . . .  and two years over Israel.

This translation is not elegant and is not what most people want, but it is better to leave the numbers blank than to convey false information to the reader, even when that information is based on an educated guess.

I welcome your comments about the problem of reading 1 Samuel 13:1.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary.

Bethlehem: Back to the Beginning

One of the favorite Christmas hymns is O Little Town of Bethlehem.  It was written by Phillips Brooks in 1867.  Brooks wrote this beloved hymn as a way to remember his celebration of Christmas in Bethlehem two years before.

The hymn was inspired by the messianic oracle of Micah 5:2: But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from of old,  from ancient days.  This great oracle is known by many people, but the majority of them truly do not understand the radical implications of Micah’s oracle.

The prophet Micah was a rural prophet who prophesied in Judah in the eighth century B.C.  A contemporary of the prophet Isaiah, Micah also lived in the chaotic days his society had to endure because of the oppressive policies of Assyria.

At the time Micah prophesied, Ahaz was king of Judah.  Ahaz was one of Judah’s most evil kings. According to the author of 2 Kings, Ahaz did not do what was right in the sight of the Lord his God, as his ancestor David had done, but he walked in the way of the kings of Israel. He even made his son pass through fire, according to the abominable practices of the nations whom the Lord drove out before the people of Israel.  He sacrificed and made offerings on the high places, on the hills, and under every green tree (2 Kings 16:2-4).

Micah came from a small village.  We know little about his family.  However, his oracles reveal that he was very familiar with the religious traditions of Israel.  He also had a personal knowledge of the social and religious abuses in Judean society and was aware of the political corruption present in Judah in the eighth century.

Micah loved his country and he became the voice of God to champion the cause of the poor against the oppression of the rich.  To Micah, the only hope for Judah was a new beginning.  In the coming of the new king, Micah saw God’s new beginning.  God was going back to Bethlehem, to give the nation a new David who would shepherd the people of Israel.  

Micah’s view of this new David had many implications for the society of his days. Implicit in his words are three radical ideas.

First, the new David would be born in Bethlehem.  This means that according to Micah, God was bypassing the splendor of the palace.  By going back to Bethlehem, God was rejecting the corrupt political and religious policies of Ahaz.

Second, the new David would be born in a small village, away from the religious center of the nation.  This means that according to Micah, God was rejecting some of the religious practices of the temple.  In Micah’s view of the future, Zion shall be plowed as a field; Jerusalem shall become a heap of ruins, and the mountain of the house a wooded height (Micah 3:12).

Third, the new David would be born among common people, thus bypassing both the religious and political dignitaries of Jerusalem.  The new David would do what the rulers, the priests, and the prophets failed to do: champion the cause of the poor and the oppressed.

To Micah, the oracle about Bethlehem and the coming of the new David meant the rejection of the paganization and the secularization of the political and religious life of Israel.

Micah’s message is still relevant in our own days.  From the manger in Bethlehem to the doors of Wal-Mart, the celebration of the birth of the Child of Bethlehem has seen great changes.

A major change is the secularization of the birth of Christ among people of faith.  Many churches are closing their doors on Christmas day because it falls on a Sunday.  Thus, some churches are placing the opening of gifts on Christmas and family traditions above the celebration of one of the greatest events in the history of the church: the Incarnation of the Son of God.  This gesture is almost as wrong as canceling Easter worship because it falls on Sunday.

Another major change is the reluctance of many people in our society, including some religious leaders, to celebrate Christmas in public.  Out of consideration for other religions and secular groups, some stores, politicians, and even religious leaders are celebrating Christmas in a way that is “constitutional and culturally sensitive.”  For this reason, they are refusing to mention the words “Christmas,” “Jesus,” “Christ,” or any other word that is associated with the religious meaning of the season.

Another change is the commercialism at Christmas.  Today, the focus of the Christmas season is on dollars and cents.  At Christmas, merchants think about profits and balancing the books. Merchants depend on Christmas to sell their merchandise and be profitable for the year.  And yet, many merchants are eliminating any vestige of what is behind the season that brings so much profit to them.

Maybe it is time to go back to Bethlehem again.  It is time to return to the original intent of Christmas.  To do this, we have to pay close attention to the song of the angels:

Glory to God in the heavenly heights,
Peace to all men and women on earth who please him (Luke 2:14).

Have a blessed Christmas.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament

Two New Archaeological Discoveries

Many of my students are fascinated by biblical archaeology. Although many archeologists today are reluctant to use the work “biblical” together with “archeology,” the fact remains that pastors, seminary students, and lay people in general continue to believe that archaeological work done in the land of the Bible is “biblical archeology.”

Two recent archaeological discoveries have produced much discussion and have already generated a vast amount of literature. Those readers who have not yet had an opportunity to read about these discoveries should follow the links posted below and read about these amazing discoveries.

The first discovery happened, of all places, in a prison in Megiddo. Prisoners who were digging the ground to prepare a foundation for an extension to the prison, uncovered the ruins of what may be described as the earliest Christian church in the land of Israel. The mosaic on the floor of the church has inscriptions in Greek and is dated to the third century A. D. Archaeologists agree that the remains are that of a Christian church. To read the article and see the pictures, click here.

The second discovery was discovered at the site of Tel Zayit, a place south of Jerusalem. The discovery consists of some writings on the wall of an ancient building. The writing, an abecedary, was probably the work of a scribe who was practicing writing the Hebrew alphabet. After studying the position of the letters, archaeologists have dated the abecedary to the 10th century B.C. To read the article, click here.

These two archaeological discoveries can be of exceptional importance in the study of the earliest Christian traditions and the cultural life of early Israel. The value of these discoveries, saved from the oblivion of the past, will depend on further research and evaluation by scholars who specialize in studying history. For a good evaluation of the Tel Zayit’s discovery, read Dr. Cathey’s blog by clicking here.

The importance of archaeological work in the biblical lands cannot be overestimated. For many years now, archaeologists have been recovering a large amount of information from the remains of biblical sites. More is yet to come.

Working on an archeological dig in Israel can be a life-changing experience. It is hard work, but the kind of work that can bring great rewards and a new appreciation for the people of antiquity.

The recent volume of the Biblical Archeology Review (BAR) lists all the 2006 digs. Those archaeologists leading the digs are looking for volunteers who want to participate in one of the excavations. If you are interested in digging in Israel next summer, read the BAR or visit their web by clicking here. The article in the BAR describes the different digs and provides information for volunteers who want to work on a dig. Who knows? You may be the one to make the next great discovery.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament

The Location of Solomon’s Temple

The Temple built by Solomon has been the object of wonder and fascination.  Many conservative and evangelical Christians, especially those who follow a dispensationalist theology, believe that before the second coming of Christ, the Jewish people will rebuild the Temple.  According to this view, the rebuilding of the Temple will happen shortly before or perhaps after Christians have been raptured.

A new controversy has developed in Israel on the precise location of Solomon’s Temple.  The issue has developed because scholars cannot agree on how long a cubit was.  In antiquity, the people of Israel and most people in the Ancient Near East used the cubit as a unit of measurement.  However, there are different ways of measuring a cubit.  That is the reason people today have a problem understanding and measuring the cubits mentioned in the Bible.  This is the reason scholars have a problem identifying the precise location of Solomon's Temple.

In a recent article, “Do you know what Noah knew: How long is a cubit?”  Richard, N. Ostling, a reporter for the Associated Press, discussed how different measurements of the cubit have produced three different theories for the possible location for Solomon’s Temple (click here to read the article).  Those who are interested in this subject will enjoy reading this article.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament

Rereading Isaiah 40:6

Although the Bible is the most beloved and the most read book in the world, it is probably also the most misunderstood.  One of the reasons for this condition is that many people read the Bible but never take time to study it in detail.

People who love the Bible read those holy words for knowledge, edification, and spiritual nourishment.  They may read the words of the Old Testament over and over again and find joy and peace for their souls and answers for the problems of life, and yet they may miss the precise meaning of what the original author intended to communicate to the people to whom those words were written.

The average readers of the Old Testament may be familiar with its content and words.  They may read one verse or one chapter and meditate on what was read and discover what the Bible says about God, about the human predicament, and how to discover comfort in the midst of suffering, and yet, without fully grasping the message the writer was addressing to his audience.

Take for instance this reading from the King James Version: “The voice said, ‘Cry.’ And he said, ‘What shall I cry?’  All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field” (Isaiah 40:6).

In order to discover whether people understood the message of this verse, I took an informal poll and asked several people to read this verse twice and then define the word “goodliness.”  Most people who read the passage believed that word “goodliness” had something to do with the goodness of people.  This is how the Holman Christian Standard Bible understands the verse: “A voice was saying, ‘Cry out!’  ‘What should I cry out?’  ‘All humanity is grass, and all its goodness is like the flower of the field.’”  However, in the context of Isaiah 40, the word “goodlines” is used in the sense of elegance, comeliness, or beauty.

One commentator understood the word to be an attempt to make a contrast between people (all flesh) and grass.  He said that the prophet’s intent was to emphasize that all people are weak and feeble like the grass that is soon withered.  To him, this comparison refers to all people, in all places, and at all times.

This passage in Isaiah is quoted in 1 Peter 1:24: “All flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass.”  Several modern translations are influenced by the text of 1 Peter and follow the example of the King James Version:

The New International Version translates “A voice says, ‘Cry out.’  And I said, ‘What shall I cry?’  ‘All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field.’”

The Revised Standard Version translates: “A voice says, ‘Cry!’  And I said, ‘What shall I cry?’  All flesh is grass, and all its beauty is like the flower of the field.”

The New Jerusalem Bible translates: “A voice said, ‘Cry aloud!’ and I said, ‘What shall I cry?’  ‘All humanity is grass and all its beauty like the wild flowers.’”

All the translations above are influenced by the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament that came into existence in the second century before the Christian era.  The Septuagint translates the Hebrew word hesed as doxa and so does 1 Peter (1 Peter 1:24).  The word doxa means “glory.”

Explaining how the word doxa is used in Isaiah 40:6, Albert Barnes wrote in his commentary: “Applied to grass, or to herbs, it denotes the flower, the beauty, the comeliness.  Applied to man, it means that which makes him comely and vigorous–health, energy, beauty, talent, wisdom.  His vigor is soon gone; his beauty fades; his wisdom ceases; and he falls, like the flower, to the dust.  The idea is, that the plans of man must be temporary; that all that appears great in him must be like the flower of the field; but that Yahweh endures, and his plans reach from age to age, and will certainly be accomplished.  This important truth was to be proclaimed, that the people might be induced not to trust in man, but put their confidence in the arm of God.”

The word that appears in the Hebrew of Isaiah is hesed.  The word hesed is related to the covenant God established with Israel at Sinai.  The word hesed refers to the commitment that binds two parties to a relationship.  

In his book, The Word Hesed in the Hebrew Bible (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), Gordon Clark says that hesed is an “action performed, in the context of a deep and enduring commitment between two persons or parties” (p. 267).  Since faithfulness to a relationship is a character of God, God also expects his people to be as committed to the relationship as he is.

When the word is applied to God, it refers to his faithfulness to the relationship.  Thus, the word is best translated “faithfulness,” “unfailing love,” “loyalty.”  When the word is applied to human beings, it refers to the loyalty and commitment that people should bring to that relationship.  In this case, a good translation of hesed should be “commitment,” “loyalty.”  A strong relationship is built on commitment.  Israel should be as loyal and committed to the covenant as God was.

The New Revised Standard Bible has a much better translation of this verse: “A voice says, ‘Cry out!’  And I said, ‘What shall I cry?’  All people are grass, their constancy is like the flower of the field” (Isaiah 40:6)

The Today’s New International Version also reflects the intent of the writer: “A voice says: ‘Cry out.’  And I said, ‘What shall I cry?’  ‘All people are like grass, and all human faithfulness is like the flower of the field.’”

God promised to be faithful to the relationship and he was.  The people of Israel promised to be faithful to the covenant, but they were not.  Thus, what the prophet is trying to communicate is that the people’s commitment is like the flower of the field, which is here today and gone tomorrow.  This is the same idea expressed by the prophet Hosea: “What shall I do with you, O Ephraim?  What shall I do with you, O Judah?  Your love (hesed) is like a morning cloud, like the dew that goes away early” (Hosea 6:4).

In Isaiah 40:6 the prophet is saying that the commitment of Israel to the covenant was like the flower of the field: it did not last very long.  He is also saying that God’s word, his promises to Israel, endure forever because he is faithful to his commitment to the relationship.

We must reread Isaiah 40:6 from a different perspective and learn anew that God does not want “goodliness.”  God wants the commitment of his people.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament

The Challenges of Parenthood

There are many genealogies in the Old Testament. The first nine chapters of 1 Chronicles are composed of a series of genealogies. Most people who read the Bible regularly, generally skip these genealogies because they are boring to read.

It is true that a simple list of names may be irrelevant to many, but they display the complicated relationships between distant generations and provide important information about the facts and circumstances that are related to the members of a family.

Although bare names in a genealogy may be insignificant to a casual reader, to an attentive reader genealogies teach important historical lessons and other truths that may not have been intended by the original writer.

The genealogies that appear in the Old Testament, in general, are related to the ancestors of Israel. At times, the names may refer to father and son or they may refer to distant ancestors or different generations. The genealogies served to reinforce the sense of kinship among members of a clan. The genealogies also promoted nationalistic feelings that served to connect an individual with the traditions of the past.

In the genealogy of the kings of Judah that appears below, we learn a great lesson.

“Uzziah was the father of Jotham, Jotham was the father of Ahaz, Ahaz was the father of Hezekiah, Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh, Manasseh was the father of Amon and Amon was the father of Josiah” (Matthew 1:9-10).

Uzziah was the father of Jotham: a good king is the father of a good king. This is not unexpected because, generally, a good father will become the father of a good son.

Jotham was the father of Ahaz: a good king becomes the father of an evil king. This is disappointing, for a good father expects his son to be a good son and follow his example.

Ahaz was the father of Hezekiah: an evil king becomes the father of one of the best kings of Judah. Now, that is a blessing because we learn that children do not have to follow the evil ways of their parents.

Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh: one of the best kings of Judah becomes the father of the worst king of Judah. Now, that is a mystery, for how can the goodness of a good father not affect the life of his son? The fact is, that children make their own decisions and choose a life for themselves, even when that life is evil.

Manasseh was the father of Amon: an evil king becomes the father of an evil king. This also is not unexpected, because at times, sons follow the evil example of their fathers.

Amon was the father of Josiah: an evil king becomes the father of the best king of Judah. This clearly shows that children do not have to follow the evil example of their fathers.

There is a lesson that all of us must learn from this genealogy: It is tough being a parent.

As we look at this genealogy, we learn that a person’s relationship with another person in a genealogy may be complicated. For instance, a trait that appears in the life of a man may appear also in the life of his son or grandson. In the same way, the presence of a trait in a child may not be a characteristic that is found in the life of either parent.

One good example of this principle is found in the following quotation from Thomas Fuller, the 17th Century theologian:

Scripture Observation

“Lord, I find the genealogy of my Saviour strangely checkered with four remarkable changes in four immediate generations:

1. Rehoboam begat Abiam; that is, a bad father begat a bad son.
2. Abiam begat Asa; that is, a bad father a good son.
3. Asa begat Jehoshaphat; that is, a good father a good son.
4. Jehoshaphat begat Joram; a good father a bad son.

I see, Lord, from hence that my father’s piety cannot be entailed; that is bad news for me. But I see also that actual impiety is not always hereditary; that is good news for my son.”

Joy and happiness, disappointment and pain are some of the experiences parents have to face in the rearing of their children. As children grow up, parents take great satisfaction in the accomplishments of their children but they also experience the pains and disappointments that come as the children fail their parents’ expectations. Joy and disappointments come with the agony and the ecstasy of being parents.

Parents hurt when they believe they have failed in their God-given task of bringing their children to love and obey God. Parents hurt when their children reject the moral values or standards they worked hard to instill in the lives of their children.

When crises arrive, parents blame themselves for failing to providing a good education for their children. They judge themselves for their failure and feel guilty because they cannot understand what went wrong. But, in order for them to deal with their sense of failure, they must understand the lesson Ezekiel teaches: “A child shall not suffer for the iniquity of a parent, nor a parent suffer for the iniquity of a child; the righteousness of the righteous shall be his own, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be his own” (Ezekiel 18:20).

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Fathers, Genealogies, Thomas Fuller

When Love Becomes an Abomination

On November 8, on an episode of Boston Legal, a drama that is broadcast on ABC, one of the lawyers was asked to defend a client whose wife wanted their marriage annulled because he had sex with a cow.

The client, as a way of justifying his act, identified himself as a respectful individual: he was a good husband, a deacon in his church, a philanthropist, a respected professor at a major university, and a town selectman.

When the man was confronted by his wife, she accused him of having sex, not only with one cow, but with two. The man confessed to having a crush on the cow. He also confessed to having fallen in love with the cow because the cow was as beautiful as his wife (if you want to read the transcript of the program, click here).

Human sexual attraction toward animals is a problem that has been present in almost every society. In modern times, the word “zoophilia” is used to describe individuals with sexual attractions to animals. The popular word used for the sexual relationship between humans and animals is bestiality.

Bestiality is considered a sin against nature because it violates the natural order of creation. In the Genesis story, the animals were not considered a suitable partner for the man. The woman was created to give man what the animals were unable to provide. The woman was created to become a partner equal to him, one who would work together with him in the work assigned to them by the Creator: to have children, to perpetuate the human race, and to cultivate and govern the earth.

According to the Wikipedia, the free Internet encyclopedia, “perhaps as many as 8-10% of sexually active adults have had significant sexual experience with an animal at some point in their lives.” Those who defend human sexuality with animals point to the fact that animals can develop a relationship with humans. They also reject a religious condemnation of zoophilia as irrelevant since most of them are not religious.

Most modern societies condemn bestiality because it is seen as a crime against nature. Primitive societies were ambivalent about humans having sexual acts with animals. Hittite Laws provide an example of this ambivalence. The Hittites were an Indo-European people who lived in Anatolia (modern-day Turkey) in the second millennium B.C. In the Hittite Law Code, law #187 says: “If a man has intercourse with a cow, it is a capital crime, he shall die.” Law #199 says: “ If anyone has intercourse with a pig or a dog, he shall die.” However, law #199 also says: “If a man has intercourse with a horse or a mule, there is no punishment.”

On the other hand, the Old Testament is emphatic about the prohibition of intercourse with animals: “A man must never defile himself by having sexual intercourse with an animal, and a woman must never present herself to a male animal in order to have intercourse with it; this is a terrible perversion” (Leviticus 18:23).
There are several reasons why bestiality is considered to be “a terrible abomination.” The primary reason is that human beings were created in the image of God. Thus, human beings are different from animals. Another reason is that in creation, human beings were given dominion over all the animals of the earth. Thus, bestiality was a deviant form of sexual behavior that was considered a violation of the natural order of sexual relationships established by the Creator.

In Israel, bestiality was a crime punished by death: “If a man has sexual intercourse with an animal, he must be put to death, and the animal must be killed. If a woman approaches a male animal to have intercourse with it, she and the animal must both be put to death. Both must die, for they are guilty of a capital offense” (Leviticus 20:15-17).

Recently, four state legislators in Massachusetts introduced a bill that will soften the crime of bestiality in that state. The purpose of the bill is to eliminate laws condemning archaic crimes. At the present, Massachusetts’ law calls bestiality an “abominable and detestable crime against nature.”

Old Testament laws regulating moral behavior should be understood as demands that God expects of the men and women he created. According to the Bible, human beings are the special creation of a holy God. For this reason, God has the right to define what is right and what is good for his creation.

Many people in today’s society believe that the ethical demands of the Bible are obstacles to the lifestyle they have chosen for themselves. There is a moral chasm between the demands of God and the desires of human beings. The standards for what is right, good, and acceptable is always God. But in a society that has abandoned God and refuses to accept the principles God has established for his creation, it has become common place to call what is evil good and what is good evil.

As for that Massachusetts’ law lessening the crime for bestiality, one wonders how long the righteous people in that state will be silent.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary