My friend Doug McHone wrote on his blog CoffeeSwirls that my post on “Abraham and the Promises of God” contains an important omission. He wrote that if you read my post on Abraham, you would never discover the reason Sarah was buried in the cave of Machpelah.
Doug’s sense of humor is evident on his post. Thank you Doug, for your kind words about my writings.
So, do you know why Abraham buried Sarah in the cave of the field of Machpelah?
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Monday, January 30, 2006
Abraham and the Promises of God
In an article dealing with the call of Abraham, Brian D. Russell wrote that the call of Abraham is the beginning of a story of holiness, mission, and community. Abraham left a legacy that affects all believers today. He became a “model for living as a sojourner in a foreign land.” (To read the article, click here)
Abraham’s legacy as a model of a believer living as a sojourner in a foreign land is based in part on God’s promise to Abraham. At the time God called Abraham, God told Abraham to leave his country, his people and his father's household and go to the land he would show him (Genesis 12:1).
Abraham left Haran and came to Canaan at the call of God (elsewhere, I have discussed whether Abraham left from Ur or Haran. To read my article on Abraham, click here). When Abraham came to Canaan, he “traveled through the land” (Genesis 12:6). In Shechem God promised Abraham: “To your offspring I will give this land” (Genesis 12:7).
The descendants of Abraham would be the heirs of what God had promised to him, but the promise was made to Abraham: he would receive the land. More than once God promised that he would give the land to Abraham himself:
“All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring forever” (Genesis 13:15).
“Go, walk through the length and breadth of the land, for I am giving it to you” (Genesis 13:17).
“He also said to him, ‘I am the Lord, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to take possession of it’” (Genesis 15:7).
“The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God” (Genesis 17:8).
God’s promise to Abraham was renewed to Isaac. At the time of the famine in Canaan, God told Isaac not to go to Egypt, and then made him this promise: “Stay in this land for a while, and I will be with you and will bless you. For to you and your descendants I will give all these lands and will confirm the oath I swore to your father Abraham” (Genesis 26:3). The promise to Isaac was that God would give to him, Isaac, and to his descendants, the land God promised to give to Abraham.
Then, the same promise was made to Jacob. At the time Jacob was fleeing from his brother Esau, God appeared to Jacob in a vision and promised to give him the land of Canaan. The Lord spoke to Jacob and said: "I am the Lord, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac. I will give you and your descendants the land on which you are lying” (Genesis 28:13).
Each of the patriarchs received a promise from God that they, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, would receive the land in which they lived. Throughout their lives, the patriarch lived as sojourners in the land God promised to give to them. Abraham “traveled through the land,” “pitched his tent” here and there, moved from one place to another, walking through the length and breadth of the land as if claiming the land God had given to him.
This brings me to Mr. Russell’s article. Writing about the fact that Abraham was a sojourner in the land of promise, Mr. Russell wrote: “Abraham died before seeing the fulfillment of God's promise of the Land of Canaan. It was for later generations to experience the gift of the land. Abraham spent his days moving around the land of Canaan living as a stranger in a strange land.”
However, if Abraham died before receiving the land, what then of God’s promise? God promised Abraham: “Go, walk through the length and breadth of the land, for I am giving it to you” (Genesis 13:17). And how about God’s promise to Isaac and to Jacob that they too would receive the land? Did the patriarchs die without receiving God’s promise?
There is, however, another way of understanding the fulfillment of the promise God made to the patriarchs. When Sarah died in Hebron, Abraham bought a parcel of land in Canaan (Genesis 23). In his dealings with the owners of the land, Abraham bought a cave in which to bury Sarah and a large field with many trees in it.
When looked at from the perspective of God’s promise to Abraham, the purchase of the cave of Machpelah is very significant. The writer of Genesis is emphasizing that Abraham became the owner of a portion of the land of Canaan legally, the same land that one day would belong to his descendants. In fact, the plot of land became the final resting place for the patriarchs and their wives. On the land Abraham bought to bury Sarah, he was buried. In addition, there Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Leah were also buried (Genesis 49:29-32).
In his book Old Testament Theology. Volume 1: Israel’s Gospel (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), p. 232-33, John Goldingay wrote: “Abraham and Sarah do come into secure legal possession of land in Canaan, even if it is a burial possession. It is a mere foothold, or rather skeleton-hold, in the land, but it means that Sarah, and in due course Abraham, Isaac, Leah and Jacob, will be able to rest there forever in the land Yhwh promised.”
God’s promise to give Abraham the land of Canaan raises a question: Can God’s promises be trusted? The narrative about Sarah’s death fits well within the perspective of God’s covenant with Abraham. Gerhard von Rad, in his commentary on Genesis (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961), p. 245, wrote: “Did the patriarchs who forsook everything for the sake of the promise go unrewarded? No, answers our narrative. In death they were heirs and no longer ‘strangers.’ A very small part of the Promised Land, the grave, belonged to them.”
The writer of Genesis is showing that Abraham came into possession of the land as a gift from God, as evidence that God’s promise was already being fulfilled in the days of Abraham. In the New Testament, Paul says that the presence of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers is a “deposit, guaranteeing what is to come” (2 Corinthians 1:22). In death, the patriarchs received a portion of the land and that burial ground became a deposit, guaranteeing what was to come.
The above comment is not a criticism of Mr. Russell’s article. Rather, it is an attempt to clarify one important aspect of God’s dealing with Abraham. I encourage you to read Mr. Russell’s article.
Claude F. Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Further Reading:
For another perspective of this topic, read Abraham’s Altars.
Tags: Abraham, Hebron, Machpelah, Promise, Sarah
Abraham’s legacy as a model of a believer living as a sojourner in a foreign land is based in part on God’s promise to Abraham. At the time God called Abraham, God told Abraham to leave his country, his people and his father's household and go to the land he would show him (Genesis 12:1).
Abraham left Haran and came to Canaan at the call of God (elsewhere, I have discussed whether Abraham left from Ur or Haran. To read my article on Abraham, click here). When Abraham came to Canaan, he “traveled through the land” (Genesis 12:6). In Shechem God promised Abraham: “To your offspring I will give this land” (Genesis 12:7).
The descendants of Abraham would be the heirs of what God had promised to him, but the promise was made to Abraham: he would receive the land. More than once God promised that he would give the land to Abraham himself:
“All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring forever” (Genesis 13:15).
“Go, walk through the length and breadth of the land, for I am giving it to you” (Genesis 13:17).
“He also said to him, ‘I am the Lord, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to take possession of it’” (Genesis 15:7).
“The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God” (Genesis 17:8).
God’s promise to Abraham was renewed to Isaac. At the time of the famine in Canaan, God told Isaac not to go to Egypt, and then made him this promise: “Stay in this land for a while, and I will be with you and will bless you. For to you and your descendants I will give all these lands and will confirm the oath I swore to your father Abraham” (Genesis 26:3). The promise to Isaac was that God would give to him, Isaac, and to his descendants, the land God promised to give to Abraham.
Then, the same promise was made to Jacob. At the time Jacob was fleeing from his brother Esau, God appeared to Jacob in a vision and promised to give him the land of Canaan. The Lord spoke to Jacob and said: "I am the Lord, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac. I will give you and your descendants the land on which you are lying” (Genesis 28:13).
Each of the patriarchs received a promise from God that they, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, would receive the land in which they lived. Throughout their lives, the patriarch lived as sojourners in the land God promised to give to them. Abraham “traveled through the land,” “pitched his tent” here and there, moved from one place to another, walking through the length and breadth of the land as if claiming the land God had given to him.
This brings me to Mr. Russell’s article. Writing about the fact that Abraham was a sojourner in the land of promise, Mr. Russell wrote: “Abraham died before seeing the fulfillment of God's promise of the Land of Canaan. It was for later generations to experience the gift of the land. Abraham spent his days moving around the land of Canaan living as a stranger in a strange land.”
However, if Abraham died before receiving the land, what then of God’s promise? God promised Abraham: “Go, walk through the length and breadth of the land, for I am giving it to you” (Genesis 13:17). And how about God’s promise to Isaac and to Jacob that they too would receive the land? Did the patriarchs die without receiving God’s promise?
There is, however, another way of understanding the fulfillment of the promise God made to the patriarchs. When Sarah died in Hebron, Abraham bought a parcel of land in Canaan (Genesis 23). In his dealings with the owners of the land, Abraham bought a cave in which to bury Sarah and a large field with many trees in it.
When looked at from the perspective of God’s promise to Abraham, the purchase of the cave of Machpelah is very significant. The writer of Genesis is emphasizing that Abraham became the owner of a portion of the land of Canaan legally, the same land that one day would belong to his descendants. In fact, the plot of land became the final resting place for the patriarchs and their wives. On the land Abraham bought to bury Sarah, he was buried. In addition, there Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Leah were also buried (Genesis 49:29-32).
In his book Old Testament Theology. Volume 1: Israel’s Gospel (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), p. 232-33, John Goldingay wrote: “Abraham and Sarah do come into secure legal possession of land in Canaan, even if it is a burial possession. It is a mere foothold, or rather skeleton-hold, in the land, but it means that Sarah, and in due course Abraham, Isaac, Leah and Jacob, will be able to rest there forever in the land Yhwh promised.”
God’s promise to give Abraham the land of Canaan raises a question: Can God’s promises be trusted? The narrative about Sarah’s death fits well within the perspective of God’s covenant with Abraham. Gerhard von Rad, in his commentary on Genesis (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961), p. 245, wrote: “Did the patriarchs who forsook everything for the sake of the promise go unrewarded? No, answers our narrative. In death they were heirs and no longer ‘strangers.’ A very small part of the Promised Land, the grave, belonged to them.”
The writer of Genesis is showing that Abraham came into possession of the land as a gift from God, as evidence that God’s promise was already being fulfilled in the days of Abraham. In the New Testament, Paul says that the presence of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers is a “deposit, guaranteeing what is to come” (2 Corinthians 1:22). In death, the patriarchs received a portion of the land and that burial ground became a deposit, guaranteeing what was to come.
The above comment is not a criticism of Mr. Russell’s article. Rather, it is an attempt to clarify one important aspect of God’s dealing with Abraham. I encourage you to read Mr. Russell’s article.
Claude F. Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Further Reading:
For another perspective of this topic, read Abraham’s Altars.
Tags: Abraham, Hebron, Machpelah, Promise, Sarah
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Praying the Psalms: A Response to John C. Endres
The book of Psalms has played an important role in the spiritual development of an untold number of people throughout the centuries. Devout people who set a regular time aside for prayer and meditation can easily use and adapt the songs and prayers from the Book of Psalms to address issues in their own lives and struggles. The songs and prayers of the psalmist express the struggles of doubt; they deal with the issues of faith and mirror the problems and challenges people face every day. What makes the Psalms so relevant to life and spirituality is the fact that these songs and prayers are true expressions of the psalmist’s humanity, and they are honest assertions of faith and praise that reflect the worshiper’s encounters with God in daily life.
For those believers who experience God in churches where the liturgical approach to worship is not strong, the Psalms are not emphasized to the degree that they are in the worship of liturgical churches. In addition, very few people in Protestant churches have ever heard of Ignatius of Loyola, much less of his Spiritual Exercises. The ignorance about the spiritual traditions of other religious communities, and, at times, the unwillingness even to learn how other faith traditions seek and serve God, contributes to the impoverishment of the spirituality of many people who would be blessed by different approaches to their spiritual lives. Ignatian spirituality and its perspective on worship could enrich the lives of other Christians.
In many religious communities, the Book of Psalms has become an integral part of their religious activities. In her book, Living with Contradiction: Reflections on the Rule of St. Benedict, Esther de Waal emphasizes the role the Book of Psalms plays in the Rules of St. Benedict and in the life of Benedictines. She wrote: “St. Benedict has himself clearly been shaped by the psalms, and the Rule quotes them constantly, more frequently than any other biblical source. He clearly wished that in his monastery the life of the community and the life of each individual should also be shaped and formed by them. So the psalms hold the central place in the daily saying of the offices, and the whole Psalter is recited weekly, until the words of the psalms would inform the mind and penetrate the heart. Benedictines are people of the psalms.”
Endres draws on his spiritual tradition as a Jesuit and uses the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius of Loyola to focus on the Psalms as an aid to “prayer, reflection, meditation, and communal prayer.” Endres believes that a meditative reading of the Psalms can achieve the intent Ignatius articulated in the Principle and Foundation In that section of the Spiritual Exercises, Ignatius wrote: “Human beings are created to praise, reverence, and serve God our Lord, and by this means to save their souls. The other things on the face of the earth are created for humanity to help them in attaining the end for which they were created.” The best way for human beings to achieve the end for which they were created is by developing a “creation-oriented spirituality,” which is focused on the praises of God as the creator.
Human beings are created to worship and serve God the creator. The prayers of Psalms were written in response to the psalmist’s life experiences. These same prayers and songs also reflect the whole range of human emotions, the same emotions which are present in the lives of every human being today. For this reason, human beings must approach God by the means God has established for us to worship him. It is because the Book of Psalms expresses such a variety of human emotions that the Psalms have become an excellent way for worshipers to pray to God with the words of Scripture, for when one prays with the words of Scripture, one becomes acquainted with prayers as God wants them prayed. When worshipers pray with the Psalms, they encounter words and sentiments that are ready to be used in the worship of God. This is the reason the early Christians, with gratitude in their hearts, sang “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” to God (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16). Walter Brueggemann says that when we pray the Psalms, “we find that the words of Scripture bring power, shape, and authority to what we know about ourselves.”
The contribution of form-critical studies on the book of Psalms has aided those who want to use the Psalms as a prayer book by classifying them according to their types. In the Psalms we discover the praise and thanksgiving of God’s people as well as their petitions and laments. In addition, in the Psalms we find faith mixed with anger, vindictiveness with forgiveness, questioning with assurance. Thus, the book of Psalms is a place where we can learn the true meaning of prayer, and it is a book that can teach us how to pray the right way. To pray in the right way means to speak to God in a way that corresponds to God's own words to his people. True prayer in the Book of Psalms is basically and fundamentally a prayer of praise to God the creator.
Endres’ selection of Psalm 8 is fitting because it reflects Ignatius’ view that human beings were created to praise God. In this Psalm the words of the psalmist are marked by the humility of the worshiper in attempting to speak of the majesty of God the creator. In contemplation, a worshiper can see the majesty of God’s creation and marvel that God has given human beings a special place in creation. Psalm 148 is a hymn of praise in which all the elements of creation and all the inhabitants of the earth are called to praise God, their creator. In reading Ps 148 a worshiper will understand what Ignatius said in the introduction to his Exercises, that human beings were created to praise God. The “Principle and Foundation” of the Exercises calls for the use of “other things” to help human being achieve the goals “for which they were created;” therefore the selection of Ps 74 is fitting because the psalmist affirms that out of the horrors of life, God is the one who acts on behalf of his people. Meditating on Ps 74 causes a worshiper to realize that the powers of evil, which often attempt to overpower the people of God, have been vanquished and subdued by God.
The faith expressed in the Psalms is based upon the personal trust of the worshiper in the God of Israel as the creator of the universe. The origin of this trust in God lies in the mighty acts of God which God performs on behalf of his people. These acts of God in the history of Israel provide the foundation for the psalmist's faith because they are works of salvation. Thus, the psalmist celebrates these historical acts of God because they have given meaning to Israel's existence, and eventually, to the psalmist’s own life.
One of the many benefits of praying with the Psalms is that the songs and prayers in the Book of Psalms come out of the worshiper's fellowship with God within the community of faith. This is the strength of using a spiritual guide such as the Spiritual Exercise of Ignatius of Loyola for prayer. When believers pray together as a community of faith, they strengthen one another.
The Book of Psalms is indeed a priceless source of assistance to those pilgrims who embark on a journey of faith and discovery. Those who seek communion with God will find in the Psalms the strength and the encouragement they need to meet God in their daily pilgrimage. Those who struggle and those who celebrate will find in the praises and prayers of the Psalms help to know that the God who created them is the same God who has been active in the life of his people. It is for this reason that worshipers today can learn from the worshipers who expressed their feelings and sentiments in the songs and prayers in the Psalms.
Note: This article was read at the Symposium on Theological Interpretation of Scripture held at North Park Theological Seminary, Chicago, Illinois, on September 26-28, 2002, in response to the paper “Praising God the Creator: Praying with Psalms During the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius” by John C. Endres. The article was published under the title “Response to Endres,” Ex Auditu 18 (2002) 116-19. Andres’ article was published on pages 93-115 of the same volume. This article was published with the permission of Wipf & Stock, Publishers. To read the article with its footnotes, click here.
Claude F. Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
For those believers who experience God in churches where the liturgical approach to worship is not strong, the Psalms are not emphasized to the degree that they are in the worship of liturgical churches. In addition, very few people in Protestant churches have ever heard of Ignatius of Loyola, much less of his Spiritual Exercises. The ignorance about the spiritual traditions of other religious communities, and, at times, the unwillingness even to learn how other faith traditions seek and serve God, contributes to the impoverishment of the spirituality of many people who would be blessed by different approaches to their spiritual lives. Ignatian spirituality and its perspective on worship could enrich the lives of other Christians.
In many religious communities, the Book of Psalms has become an integral part of their religious activities. In her book, Living with Contradiction: Reflections on the Rule of St. Benedict, Esther de Waal emphasizes the role the Book of Psalms plays in the Rules of St. Benedict and in the life of Benedictines. She wrote: “St. Benedict has himself clearly been shaped by the psalms, and the Rule quotes them constantly, more frequently than any other biblical source. He clearly wished that in his monastery the life of the community and the life of each individual should also be shaped and formed by them. So the psalms hold the central place in the daily saying of the offices, and the whole Psalter is recited weekly, until the words of the psalms would inform the mind and penetrate the heart. Benedictines are people of the psalms.”
Endres draws on his spiritual tradition as a Jesuit and uses the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius of Loyola to focus on the Psalms as an aid to “prayer, reflection, meditation, and communal prayer.” Endres believes that a meditative reading of the Psalms can achieve the intent Ignatius articulated in the Principle and Foundation In that section of the Spiritual Exercises, Ignatius wrote: “Human beings are created to praise, reverence, and serve God our Lord, and by this means to save their souls. The other things on the face of the earth are created for humanity to help them in attaining the end for which they were created.” The best way for human beings to achieve the end for which they were created is by developing a “creation-oriented spirituality,” which is focused on the praises of God as the creator.
Human beings are created to worship and serve God the creator. The prayers of Psalms were written in response to the psalmist’s life experiences. These same prayers and songs also reflect the whole range of human emotions, the same emotions which are present in the lives of every human being today. For this reason, human beings must approach God by the means God has established for us to worship him. It is because the Book of Psalms expresses such a variety of human emotions that the Psalms have become an excellent way for worshipers to pray to God with the words of Scripture, for when one prays with the words of Scripture, one becomes acquainted with prayers as God wants them prayed. When worshipers pray with the Psalms, they encounter words and sentiments that are ready to be used in the worship of God. This is the reason the early Christians, with gratitude in their hearts, sang “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” to God (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16). Walter Brueggemann says that when we pray the Psalms, “we find that the words of Scripture bring power, shape, and authority to what we know about ourselves.”
The contribution of form-critical studies on the book of Psalms has aided those who want to use the Psalms as a prayer book by classifying them according to their types. In the Psalms we discover the praise and thanksgiving of God’s people as well as their petitions and laments. In addition, in the Psalms we find faith mixed with anger, vindictiveness with forgiveness, questioning with assurance. Thus, the book of Psalms is a place where we can learn the true meaning of prayer, and it is a book that can teach us how to pray the right way. To pray in the right way means to speak to God in a way that corresponds to God's own words to his people. True prayer in the Book of Psalms is basically and fundamentally a prayer of praise to God the creator.
Endres’ selection of Psalm 8 is fitting because it reflects Ignatius’ view that human beings were created to praise God. In this Psalm the words of the psalmist are marked by the humility of the worshiper in attempting to speak of the majesty of God the creator. In contemplation, a worshiper can see the majesty of God’s creation and marvel that God has given human beings a special place in creation. Psalm 148 is a hymn of praise in which all the elements of creation and all the inhabitants of the earth are called to praise God, their creator. In reading Ps 148 a worshiper will understand what Ignatius said in the introduction to his Exercises, that human beings were created to praise God. The “Principle and Foundation” of the Exercises calls for the use of “other things” to help human being achieve the goals “for which they were created;” therefore the selection of Ps 74 is fitting because the psalmist affirms that out of the horrors of life, God is the one who acts on behalf of his people. Meditating on Ps 74 causes a worshiper to realize that the powers of evil, which often attempt to overpower the people of God, have been vanquished and subdued by God.
The faith expressed in the Psalms is based upon the personal trust of the worshiper in the God of Israel as the creator of the universe. The origin of this trust in God lies in the mighty acts of God which God performs on behalf of his people. These acts of God in the history of Israel provide the foundation for the psalmist's faith because they are works of salvation. Thus, the psalmist celebrates these historical acts of God because they have given meaning to Israel's existence, and eventually, to the psalmist’s own life.
One of the many benefits of praying with the Psalms is that the songs and prayers in the Book of Psalms come out of the worshiper's fellowship with God within the community of faith. This is the strength of using a spiritual guide such as the Spiritual Exercise of Ignatius of Loyola for prayer. When believers pray together as a community of faith, they strengthen one another.
The Book of Psalms is indeed a priceless source of assistance to those pilgrims who embark on a journey of faith and discovery. Those who seek communion with God will find in the Psalms the strength and the encouragement they need to meet God in their daily pilgrimage. Those who struggle and those who celebrate will find in the praises and prayers of the Psalms help to know that the God who created them is the same God who has been active in the life of his people. It is for this reason that worshipers today can learn from the worshipers who expressed their feelings and sentiments in the songs and prayers in the Psalms.
Note: This article was read at the Symposium on Theological Interpretation of Scripture held at North Park Theological Seminary, Chicago, Illinois, on September 26-28, 2002, in response to the paper “Praising God the Creator: Praying with Psalms During the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius” by John C. Endres. The article was published under the title “Response to Endres,” Ex Auditu 18 (2002) 116-19. Andres’ article was published on pages 93-115 of the same volume. This article was published with the permission of Wipf & Stock, Publishers. To read the article with its footnotes, click here.
Claude F. Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Monday, January 23, 2006
The Whale That Swallowed London
Last week in central London, a bottle-nosed whale was seen swimming up the River Thames to the delight of onlookers. The whale swam past Big Ben and Parliament as thousands of people looked on with apprehension, worried about its survival.
The sight of the whale delighted the Londoners because this was the first time a bottle-nosed whale has been seen swimming up the Thames since 1913. No one knows the reason that caused the whale to swim the shallow waters of the Thames since they are generally found in the deep waters of the North Atlantic. Marine experts believe that when whales become sick or injured, they often become disoriented and swim away from their pod.
A rescue effort to save the stranded whale failed. Rescuers used a crane in an attempt to return the whale to the sea. The whale was placed on a barge but it died before it could be transported to deep waters.
The size of the great whales has always been a fascination to people of antiquity. Superstitious people who could not explain the mysterious monster that lived in the vast oceans created myths and legends to explain its existence. The rare sight of a whale in London evoked biblical images of the book of Jonah and of the prophet who was swallowed by the big fish.
Writing in The Observer of London, a reporter wrote: “In the Old Testament book of Jonah, the authorised version's 'great fish' that swallows the prophet eventually tunes its radar to the right frequency, receives the word of God and, after a long weekend in the depths, saves the errant holy man by spewing him up onto dry land, whence he goes on to rescue the reprobates of Nineveh from the wrath of the Almighty” (to read the whole story, click here).
The author of the article also wrote: “Leviathan's strange and forlorn visit to London was a moment of reality television that provoked only the finest emotions - pity and wonder, and finally sorrow - among thousands of onlookers.”
The descriptions above show the power of imagination. When something so rare is seen, the imagination of writers waxes fertile and the most beautiful and amazing poetic liberties take place creating statements that have nothing to do with reality, much less with the realities of the biblical text.
First, the Old Testament never says that Jonah was swallowed by a whale. In fact, the word “whale” does not appear in the Old Testament except in the King James Version in Job 7:12 and Ezekiel 32:2 where the NIV translates the Hebrew word as “the monster of the sea” and the NRSV translates the same words as “the dragon” in the sea.
Second, the word “Leviathan” appears five times in the Old Testament (Job 3:8; 41:1; Psalm 74:14; 104:26; Isaiah 27:1). Leviathan has often been identified with a dragon which was considered to be the enemy of light. It has also been identified with the crocodile, the whale, a large sea animal, and with monsters of the deep. But none of these descriptions fits with what the Old Testament says about Leviathan.
The Psalmist says that the Lord defeated Leviathan: “You crushed the heads of Leviathan” (Psalm 74:14). Psalm 74:14 portrays Leviathan as a monster with many heads. On the other hand, Isaiah 27:1 gives a different picture of Leviathan: “On that day the LORD with his cruel and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will kill the dragon that is in the sea.”
Thus, the poetic imagination of the reporter who described the bottle-nosed whale in the Thames with biblical language was as fertile as the imagination of the people of the Old Testament describing something they could not understand.
What would motivate a reporter to wax eloquent at the sight of that majestic mammal? Maybe his own words can explain his poetic feelings. In describing what brought the crowds to watch the whale, the reporter wrote, “Those who lined the Embankment to watch the whale's doomed journey maybe felt a genetic twinge of nostalgia, too. When we crawled out of the ocean those billions of years ago, the whale was among the mammals we left behind.”
That “genetic twinge of nostalgia” can surely inspire people and give writers a fertile imagination. I have to confess, “genetic twinge of nostalgia” was the reason for the title of this article.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
The sight of the whale delighted the Londoners because this was the first time a bottle-nosed whale has been seen swimming up the Thames since 1913. No one knows the reason that caused the whale to swim the shallow waters of the Thames since they are generally found in the deep waters of the North Atlantic. Marine experts believe that when whales become sick or injured, they often become disoriented and swim away from their pod.
A rescue effort to save the stranded whale failed. Rescuers used a crane in an attempt to return the whale to the sea. The whale was placed on a barge but it died before it could be transported to deep waters.
The size of the great whales has always been a fascination to people of antiquity. Superstitious people who could not explain the mysterious monster that lived in the vast oceans created myths and legends to explain its existence. The rare sight of a whale in London evoked biblical images of the book of Jonah and of the prophet who was swallowed by the big fish.
Writing in The Observer of London, a reporter wrote: “In the Old Testament book of Jonah, the authorised version's 'great fish' that swallows the prophet eventually tunes its radar to the right frequency, receives the word of God and, after a long weekend in the depths, saves the errant holy man by spewing him up onto dry land, whence he goes on to rescue the reprobates of Nineveh from the wrath of the Almighty” (to read the whole story, click here).
The author of the article also wrote: “Leviathan's strange and forlorn visit to London was a moment of reality television that provoked only the finest emotions - pity and wonder, and finally sorrow - among thousands of onlookers.”
The descriptions above show the power of imagination. When something so rare is seen, the imagination of writers waxes fertile and the most beautiful and amazing poetic liberties take place creating statements that have nothing to do with reality, much less with the realities of the biblical text.
First, the Old Testament never says that Jonah was swallowed by a whale. In fact, the word “whale” does not appear in the Old Testament except in the King James Version in Job 7:12 and Ezekiel 32:2 where the NIV translates the Hebrew word as “the monster of the sea” and the NRSV translates the same words as “the dragon” in the sea.
Second, the word “Leviathan” appears five times in the Old Testament (Job 3:8; 41:1; Psalm 74:14; 104:26; Isaiah 27:1). Leviathan has often been identified with a dragon which was considered to be the enemy of light. It has also been identified with the crocodile, the whale, a large sea animal, and with monsters of the deep. But none of these descriptions fits with what the Old Testament says about Leviathan.
The Psalmist says that the Lord defeated Leviathan: “You crushed the heads of Leviathan” (Psalm 74:14). Psalm 74:14 portrays Leviathan as a monster with many heads. On the other hand, Isaiah 27:1 gives a different picture of Leviathan: “On that day the LORD with his cruel and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will kill the dragon that is in the sea.”
Thus, the poetic imagination of the reporter who described the bottle-nosed whale in the Thames with biblical language was as fertile as the imagination of the people of the Old Testament describing something they could not understand.
What would motivate a reporter to wax eloquent at the sight of that majestic mammal? Maybe his own words can explain his poetic feelings. In describing what brought the crowds to watch the whale, the reporter wrote, “Those who lined the Embankment to watch the whale's doomed journey maybe felt a genetic twinge of nostalgia, too. When we crawled out of the ocean those billions of years ago, the whale was among the mammals we left behind.”
That “genetic twinge of nostalgia” can surely inspire people and give writers a fertile imagination. I have to confess, “genetic twinge of nostalgia” was the reason for the title of this article.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Friday, January 20, 2006
Saddam Hussein and King Nebuchadnezzar
In an Op-Ed essay titled “Wayward Christian Soldiers,” published in The New York Times on January 20, 2006, Charles Marsh, an evangelical and a professor of religion at the University of Virginia, discusses the evangelical support for the invasion of Iraq. His study is based on what he calls the “war sermons delivered by influential evangelical ministers.” Mr. Marsh says that in these sermons, evangelical leaders gave their blessings to the invasion of Iraq and to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
Mr. Marsh’s article presents many reasons given by evangelicals to support the war against Iraq. Among the many reasons cited in the article for the support of the war, was the belief that the war represented God’s opposition against those who fought against him. Others believed the war was part of the eschatological battle that would take place at the end of the ages. Still others believed God was “pro-war” and that the war would open the doors for the evangelization of Muslims.
An argument used to support the war caught my attention. Describing the content of some of those war sermons, Mr. Marsh wrote: “Some preachers tried to link Saddam Hussein with wicked King Nebuchadnezzar of Biblical fame, but these arguments depended on esoteric interpretations of the Old Testament book of II Kings and could not easily be reduced to the kinds of catchy phrases that are projected onto video screens in vast evangelical churches” (if you want to read the complete article, click here).
The comparison of Saddam Hussein with King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon is very interesting. According to Mr. Marsh, all the arguments for the comparison were taken from the book of 2 Kings. However, what these preachers do not know is that Nebuchadnezzar is presented one way in the book of 2 Kings and another way in the book of the prophet Jeremiah.
Nebuchadnezzar was the son of Nabopolassar, king of Babylon, and he reigned from 605-562 B.C. Nebuchadnezzar, the second king of Babylon, was the most famous king of the Chaldeans, a people whom Jeremiah called “an ancient nation” (Jeremiah 5:15). After he became king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar brought fame and prosperity to the neo-Babylonian Empire. Of all the foreign kings mentioned in the Old Testament, Nebuchadnezzar is the most prominent and the one better known by people who study the Bible.
Nebuchadnezzar was known as a great builder. He boasted that Babylon was a “magnificent” city which he built to be his royal city and the capital of his empire (Daniel 4:30). Nebuchadnezzar built the Ishtar Gate, a magnificent palace for himself; he rebuilt the ziggurat (a temple in the form of a pyramidal tower), and he built a temple for Marduk, the chief god of the Babylonian pantheon. His best-known project was the famous Hanging Gardens of Babylon which he built for his wife, the daughter of the king of Media.
The book of 2 Kings presents him as the conqueror of Jerusalem. After his victory against Egypt at the battle of Carchemish, Nebuchadnezzar made Jehoiakim, king of Judah, a vassal of Babylon. Jehoiakim submitted to Nebuchadnezzar for three years (604-601 B.C.). In 601 B.C., Egypt and Babylon met again with heavy losses on both sides. Nebuchadnezzar returned home to reorganize his army and Jehoiakim, counting on Egyptian help, revolted against the Babylonians (2 Kings 24:1).
Nebuchadnezzar did not campaign against Palestine from 600-598 B.C. Unable to fight against Judah, Nebuchadnezzar sent mercenary soldiers to fight against Jehoiakim (2 Kings 24:2-3). In 598 B.C., Babylon advanced against Judah. Egypt promised to help Jehoiakim, but Egypt's military help did not materialize (2 Kings 24:7).
Jehoiakim died at this time. Jehoiakim’s son, Jehoiachin became the new king of Judah (597 B.C.), but three months later he submitted to Nebuchadnezzar who then deported the king of Judah, his mother, the royal family, the palace officials, the army officers, fighting men, craftsmen, and smiths to Babylon . He also took all the men of substance and all the men who were capable of war. According to 2 Kings 24:12-16, 10,000 people were taken into exile. In addition, another 8,000 professional people were also taken. Nebuchadnezzar also took all the treasures of the temple and the palace and broke all the vessels of gold used in worship in the temple. Jehoiachin remained in a prison in Babylon for thirty-seven years, until he was freed by Evil-merodach, Nebuchadnezzar’s son, in 560 B.C. (2 Kings 25:27-30; Jeremiah 52:31-34).
Nebuchadnezzar placed Zedekiah on the throne as the new king of Judah in 597 B.C. Zedekiah served Nebuchadnezzar eight years, but in his ninth, hoping for military help from Egypt (Jeremiah 37:5), Zedekiah rebelled against Babylon. In 588 Nebuchadnezzar came back to Jerusalem and once again besieged the city. The scope of Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of Judah is confirmed by the archaeological evidence. Archaeology has revealed that many of the fortified cities of Judah were destroyed. In March 587 B.C., Jerusalem was conquered; the temple was burned as well as the great houses of the city. At this time, a second deportation took place. Most of the important people of Judah were taken into exile; only the poorest people of the land were left behind.
The book of Jeremiah presents a different picture of Nebuchadnezzar. The ascension of Nebuchadnezzar to the throne of Babylon was an ominous sign for Jeremiah. The defeat of Egypt in 605 B.C. and the ascension of Nebuchadnezzar to the throne of Babylon assured Jeremiah that the end of Judah was near (Jeremiah 25:1). In the past, Jeremiah had proclaimed that God would send the “foe from the north” to bring judgment upon Judah (Jeremiah 1:5). Now, for the first time, Jeremiah proclaims that the “foe from the north” is Babylon, under the leadership of Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 25:1-9).
Jeremiah calls Nebuchadnezzar “The Servant of the Lord,” a title that appears three times in the book of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 25:9; 27:6; 43:10). The title “The Servant of Yahweh” is generally used in the Old Testament to designate persons who had a special relationship with God and who were used to do God’s will in the life of God’s people.
Jeremiah designates Nebuchadnezzar the “The Servant of Lord” as a way to present the king of Babylon as the one appointed by God to have dominion over the nations and the one who would act as the instrument of God's justice (Jeremiah 25:8-11). Because Nebuchadnezzar was acting as God’s agent, Jeremiah declared to the people that rebellion against Nebuchadnezzar was rebellion against God. The Lord commands Jeremiah to write his oracles on a scroll as a warning to Judah (Jeremiah 36:1-4).
According to Jeremiah, Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest and subjugation of the nations will happen with God’s approval: “Now I will hand all your countries over to my servant Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; I will make even the wild animals subject to him. All nations will serve him and his son and his grandson until the time for his land comes; then many nations and great kings will subjugate him (Jeremiah 27:6-7).”
In the book of Jeremiah, Nebuchadnezzar is God’s instrument to bring divine judgment to Judah. In the past, God had sent his servants the prophets to warn the people to repent of their evil ways, but they refused (Jeremiah 25:4). Now, God is sending his “Servant” Nebuchadnezzar to punish Judah for their wickedness. The punishment against Judah will be mediated through Nebuchadnezzar. When God acts, Nebuchadnezzar acts, Nebuchadnezzar’s actions are God’s actions.
The picture Jeremiah paints of Nebuchadnezzar reflects the prophet’s understanding of God’s work. Jeremiah understood that Yahweh had given Nebuchadnezzar the power and the authority to subjugate kingdoms and nations. As the divine instrument of God’s judgment, Nebuchadnezzar was God’s chosen agent, God’s servant who brought the awful judgment over God’s rebellious people. In the end, the biblical tradition that says that Nebuchadnezzar came to the realization that the God of Israel was the supreme God (Daniel 2:47; 3:28-29). The truth is, that in the book of Jeremiah, Nebuchadnezzar is portrayed as the “Servant” of the God of Israel, as one individual who had the responsibility of performing a designated function on Yahweh’s behalf.
The lesson we learn from all of this is very simple. Saddam Hussein was not like King Nebuchadnezzar. Before any preacher preaches a sermon, that preacher must consult the whole Bible. Interpreting a biblical text out of its context may prove a point, but it can carry the danger that such interpretation may provide an “esoteric interpretation of the Old Testament.”
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Mr. Marsh’s article presents many reasons given by evangelicals to support the war against Iraq. Among the many reasons cited in the article for the support of the war, was the belief that the war represented God’s opposition against those who fought against him. Others believed the war was part of the eschatological battle that would take place at the end of the ages. Still others believed God was “pro-war” and that the war would open the doors for the evangelization of Muslims.
An argument used to support the war caught my attention. Describing the content of some of those war sermons, Mr. Marsh wrote: “Some preachers tried to link Saddam Hussein with wicked King Nebuchadnezzar of Biblical fame, but these arguments depended on esoteric interpretations of the Old Testament book of II Kings and could not easily be reduced to the kinds of catchy phrases that are projected onto video screens in vast evangelical churches” (if you want to read the complete article, click here).
The comparison of Saddam Hussein with King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon is very interesting. According to Mr. Marsh, all the arguments for the comparison were taken from the book of 2 Kings. However, what these preachers do not know is that Nebuchadnezzar is presented one way in the book of 2 Kings and another way in the book of the prophet Jeremiah.
Nebuchadnezzar was the son of Nabopolassar, king of Babylon, and he reigned from 605-562 B.C. Nebuchadnezzar, the second king of Babylon, was the most famous king of the Chaldeans, a people whom Jeremiah called “an ancient nation” (Jeremiah 5:15). After he became king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar brought fame and prosperity to the neo-Babylonian Empire. Of all the foreign kings mentioned in the Old Testament, Nebuchadnezzar is the most prominent and the one better known by people who study the Bible.
Nebuchadnezzar was known as a great builder. He boasted that Babylon was a “magnificent” city which he built to be his royal city and the capital of his empire (Daniel 4:30). Nebuchadnezzar built the Ishtar Gate, a magnificent palace for himself; he rebuilt the ziggurat (a temple in the form of a pyramidal tower), and he built a temple for Marduk, the chief god of the Babylonian pantheon. His best-known project was the famous Hanging Gardens of Babylon which he built for his wife, the daughter of the king of Media.
The book of 2 Kings presents him as the conqueror of Jerusalem. After his victory against Egypt at the battle of Carchemish, Nebuchadnezzar made Jehoiakim, king of Judah, a vassal of Babylon. Jehoiakim submitted to Nebuchadnezzar for three years (604-601 B.C.). In 601 B.C., Egypt and Babylon met again with heavy losses on both sides. Nebuchadnezzar returned home to reorganize his army and Jehoiakim, counting on Egyptian help, revolted against the Babylonians (2 Kings 24:1).
Nebuchadnezzar did not campaign against Palestine from 600-598 B.C. Unable to fight against Judah, Nebuchadnezzar sent mercenary soldiers to fight against Jehoiakim (2 Kings 24:2-3). In 598 B.C., Babylon advanced against Judah. Egypt promised to help Jehoiakim, but Egypt's military help did not materialize (2 Kings 24:7).
Jehoiakim died at this time. Jehoiakim’s son, Jehoiachin became the new king of Judah (597 B.C.), but three months later he submitted to Nebuchadnezzar who then deported the king of Judah, his mother, the royal family, the palace officials, the army officers, fighting men, craftsmen, and smiths to Babylon . He also took all the men of substance and all the men who were capable of war. According to 2 Kings 24:12-16, 10,000 people were taken into exile. In addition, another 8,000 professional people were also taken. Nebuchadnezzar also took all the treasures of the temple and the palace and broke all the vessels of gold used in worship in the temple. Jehoiachin remained in a prison in Babylon for thirty-seven years, until he was freed by Evil-merodach, Nebuchadnezzar’s son, in 560 B.C. (2 Kings 25:27-30; Jeremiah 52:31-34).
Nebuchadnezzar placed Zedekiah on the throne as the new king of Judah in 597 B.C. Zedekiah served Nebuchadnezzar eight years, but in his ninth, hoping for military help from Egypt (Jeremiah 37:5), Zedekiah rebelled against Babylon. In 588 Nebuchadnezzar came back to Jerusalem and once again besieged the city. The scope of Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of Judah is confirmed by the archaeological evidence. Archaeology has revealed that many of the fortified cities of Judah were destroyed. In March 587 B.C., Jerusalem was conquered; the temple was burned as well as the great houses of the city. At this time, a second deportation took place. Most of the important people of Judah were taken into exile; only the poorest people of the land were left behind.
The book of Jeremiah presents a different picture of Nebuchadnezzar. The ascension of Nebuchadnezzar to the throne of Babylon was an ominous sign for Jeremiah. The defeat of Egypt in 605 B.C. and the ascension of Nebuchadnezzar to the throne of Babylon assured Jeremiah that the end of Judah was near (Jeremiah 25:1). In the past, Jeremiah had proclaimed that God would send the “foe from the north” to bring judgment upon Judah (Jeremiah 1:5). Now, for the first time, Jeremiah proclaims that the “foe from the north” is Babylon, under the leadership of Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 25:1-9).
Jeremiah calls Nebuchadnezzar “The Servant of the Lord,” a title that appears three times in the book of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 25:9; 27:6; 43:10). The title “The Servant of Yahweh” is generally used in the Old Testament to designate persons who had a special relationship with God and who were used to do God’s will in the life of God’s people.
Jeremiah designates Nebuchadnezzar the “The Servant of Lord” as a way to present the king of Babylon as the one appointed by God to have dominion over the nations and the one who would act as the instrument of God's justice (Jeremiah 25:8-11). Because Nebuchadnezzar was acting as God’s agent, Jeremiah declared to the people that rebellion against Nebuchadnezzar was rebellion against God. The Lord commands Jeremiah to write his oracles on a scroll as a warning to Judah (Jeremiah 36:1-4).
According to Jeremiah, Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest and subjugation of the nations will happen with God’s approval: “Now I will hand all your countries over to my servant Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; I will make even the wild animals subject to him. All nations will serve him and his son and his grandson until the time for his land comes; then many nations and great kings will subjugate him (Jeremiah 27:6-7).”
In the book of Jeremiah, Nebuchadnezzar is God’s instrument to bring divine judgment to Judah. In the past, God had sent his servants the prophets to warn the people to repent of their evil ways, but they refused (Jeremiah 25:4). Now, God is sending his “Servant” Nebuchadnezzar to punish Judah for their wickedness. The punishment against Judah will be mediated through Nebuchadnezzar. When God acts, Nebuchadnezzar acts, Nebuchadnezzar’s actions are God’s actions.
The picture Jeremiah paints of Nebuchadnezzar reflects the prophet’s understanding of God’s work. Jeremiah understood that Yahweh had given Nebuchadnezzar the power and the authority to subjugate kingdoms and nations. As the divine instrument of God’s judgment, Nebuchadnezzar was God’s chosen agent, God’s servant who brought the awful judgment over God’s rebellious people. In the end, the biblical tradition that says that Nebuchadnezzar came to the realization that the God of Israel was the supreme God (Daniel 2:47; 3:28-29). The truth is, that in the book of Jeremiah, Nebuchadnezzar is portrayed as the “Servant” of the God of Israel, as one individual who had the responsibility of performing a designated function on Yahweh’s behalf.
The lesson we learn from all of this is very simple. Saddam Hussein was not like King Nebuchadnezzar. Before any preacher preaches a sermon, that preacher must consult the whole Bible. Interpreting a biblical text out of its context may prove a point, but it can carry the danger that such interpretation may provide an “esoteric interpretation of the Old Testament.”
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
The Antichristians and the Old Testament
An antichristian group on the Internet has dedicated themselves to use the Old Testament to attack Christianity. All of their posts are designed to denigrate Christianity and its teachings. I do not spend time reading their writings, but a recent post deserves a reply.
On a post dated December 29, 2005, a post that includes a discussion of Deuteronomy 13:1, the author of the post wrote:
You know what's even more weird? The translations by jewish sources have something else to say that seems to have been omitted by all christian translations I have ever seen!
"Be careful to observe only that which I enjoin upon you: neither add to it nor take away from it."
A verse condemning omittions and additions OMMITTED?! But WHY? Maybe because this little verse would be a big blow to christianity. According to one source, the Old testament contains not only the 24 of the books included in the Tanakh, the so called "jewish bible." BUT also certain deuterocanonical books! And have added passages to ESTHER AND DANIEL! So what's up? Add scripture then cover your tracks by omitting the law condemning it? Very deceptive! (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible)
Protestants noticed this problem and OMITTED the additions (Very good!) but it appears this verse I mentioned STILL isn't in the KJV!
The quote above is taken verbatim from their blog. To read the whole blog, click here.
The quote above demonstrates a big weakness in the argument of these antichristians: their knowledge of the Bible is second hand knowledge. Had these people known the Bible, they would discover that the verse they claim Christians omitted from the Bible is still in the Bible, but not at the place they thought it should be.
It order to point an accusing finger at Christians, they quote a Jewish source to say Christians conveniently omitted Deuteronomy 13:1 from the Bible in order to justify the addition of the New Testament to the Hebrew Bible. What they do not know is that they are quoting Deuteronomy 13:1 from the Hebrew Bible.
At times, the versification in the Hebrew Bible and the versification in English Bibles differ and this is the case here. Deuteronomy 13:1 in the Hebrew Bible is Deuteronomy 12:32 in the English Bible. So, the verse has not been omitted, it is still there.
Christians are not afraid to say that the New Testament is canonical Scriptures. Christians do not have to omit Deuteronomy 13:1 from the Bible to justify the validity of the New Testament. Christians believe that the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christians Scriptures form a collection of writings that is authoritative for their faith and practice.
Claude F. Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
On a post dated December 29, 2005, a post that includes a discussion of Deuteronomy 13:1, the author of the post wrote:
You know what's even more weird? The translations by jewish sources have something else to say that seems to have been omitted by all christian translations I have ever seen!
"Be careful to observe only that which I enjoin upon you: neither add to it nor take away from it."
A verse condemning omittions and additions OMMITTED?! But WHY? Maybe because this little verse would be a big blow to christianity. According to one source, the Old testament contains not only the 24 of the books included in the Tanakh, the so called "jewish bible." BUT also certain deuterocanonical books! And have added passages to ESTHER AND DANIEL! So what's up? Add scripture then cover your tracks by omitting the law condemning it? Very deceptive! (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible)
Protestants noticed this problem and OMITTED the additions (Very good!) but it appears this verse I mentioned STILL isn't in the KJV!
The quote above is taken verbatim from their blog. To read the whole blog, click here.
The quote above demonstrates a big weakness in the argument of these antichristians: their knowledge of the Bible is second hand knowledge. Had these people known the Bible, they would discover that the verse they claim Christians omitted from the Bible is still in the Bible, but not at the place they thought it should be.
It order to point an accusing finger at Christians, they quote a Jewish source to say Christians conveniently omitted Deuteronomy 13:1 from the Bible in order to justify the addition of the New Testament to the Hebrew Bible. What they do not know is that they are quoting Deuteronomy 13:1 from the Hebrew Bible.
At times, the versification in the Hebrew Bible and the versification in English Bibles differ and this is the case here. Deuteronomy 13:1 in the Hebrew Bible is Deuteronomy 12:32 in the English Bible. So, the verse has not been omitted, it is still there.
Christians are not afraid to say that the New Testament is canonical Scriptures. Christians do not have to omit Deuteronomy 13:1 from the Bible to justify the validity of the New Testament. Christians believe that the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christians Scriptures form a collection of writings that is authoritative for their faith and practice.
Claude F. Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Rereading Genesis 22:8: The Sacrifice of Isaac and the Preacher
Preaching good and effective sermons from the Old Testament requires hard work. In preparing their sermons, ministers must read good commentaries, consult different translations, and use the best scholarship available to them in order to gain a better understanding of the biblical text.
A biblical sermon is the proclamation of God’s truth, thus, before preaching from any text, ministers must go through the most rigorous study of the text in order to understand the historical and cultural backgrounds of the passage they are using, as well as the precise meaning of the words used in the text.
The success of a good sermon depends on the proper interpretation of the text. In interpreting a text, the minister must look at the historical context of the passage and the language used by the writer. The most pressing issue faced by those who preach from the Old Testament is how to interpret the message of a text that was written centuries ago in such a way that it becomes relevant to people living in the twenty-first century.
There are many ways to preach from the Old Testament. One way to make the Old Testament relevant for people today is to interpret it in the light of the complete work of Jesus Christ. Often, this method of interpretation requires a spiritualization of a biblical passage at the cost of the grammatical-historical sense of the text. The spiritualization of the Old Testament degrades the historical value of the text and brings into the text a secondary meaning that was not present in the original intent of the writer or that is not present in the actual reading of the text.
Some preachers devalue the text of the Old Testament by adding meaning to words and events in order to produce a developed doctrine of the teachings of the New Testament. Bernard Ramm, in his book Protestant Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1970), p. 50, said that “allegorists might find something far richer about Jesus Christ and salvation in Genesis than in Luke.”
Take for instance the story of the sacrifice of Isaac in Genesis 22. At the command of God, Abraham took his beloved son Isaac to sacrifice him on the top of a mountain that the Lord had chosen. God’s request evoked deep feelings in Abraham, and yet, contrary to human desires, Abraham obeyed the divine command, took his son, and prepared to do what God had demanded of him.
As Abraham and Isaac walked to the designated place, Isaac sensing that something was missing, asked his father, “Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” (Genesis 22:7 KJV). Abraham’s answer to Isaac is a declaration of faith and confidence in God. Abraham said to his son, “My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering” (Genesis 22:8 KJV).
Abraham’s reply does not answer Isaac’s question. As Walter Brueggemann wrote in his commentary on Genesis (Genesis [Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982], p. 188): “Abraham does not tell Isaac all he wants to know because Abraham himself does not know.”
The translation of verse 8 as it appears in the King James Version is not very clear. As the King James Version translates, it seems that God will provide himself as the lamb for the sacrifice. And this is how M. R. DeHann understood the verse. In his book, Portraits of Christ in Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1966), p. 139, DeHaan wrote: “Notice it does not say ‘God will himself provide a lamb,’ but it says, ‘God will provide himself.’ Translated freely Abraham says God Himself is going to be the Lamb of sacrifice.”
The problem with the King James Version is that in translating verse 8, the translators of the KJV did not translate a preposition (“for”) and a definite article (“the”). If the translators had paid attention to these minor details, the translation would read like this: “God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering” (Genesis 22:8 ESV).
The translation of Genesis 22:8 in the English Standard Version (ESV) is much superior to the translation of the King James Version (KJV). Had Dr. DeHaan used the ESV, he would have no grounds to preach that God was providing himself as the sacrificial lamb.
I am sure that Dr. DeHaan’s sermon was a blessing and inspired many people who heard that interpretation of Genesis 22:8. However, just because a sermon is inspiring and even life-changing, it does not mean that it is true to the real meaning of the text. The writer of Genesis 22:8 never intended to say that God would offer himself as a sacrificial lamb. It is only a poor interpretation of a flawed translation that can produce a sermon that completely misunderstands the original meaning of the writer.
This brings me back to the preacher. There are three lessons that every preacher must learn in the preparation of sermons. First, it is important to check the original languages to ascertain whether a translation is close to the original meaning of the text. Second, since most preachers cannot read Hebrew and Greek, it becomes imperative that preachers consult more than one translation in the preparation of their sermons and compare how different translations translate the text being used as the basis for the sermon.
The third lesson preachers must learn is this: there is no substitute for personal study and hard work. Preaching God’s word is a great responsibility. Preachers must work hard to make sure that the message they preach was given to them by God and that the message they preach reflects the truth of the text.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
A biblical sermon is the proclamation of God’s truth, thus, before preaching from any text, ministers must go through the most rigorous study of the text in order to understand the historical and cultural backgrounds of the passage they are using, as well as the precise meaning of the words used in the text.
The success of a good sermon depends on the proper interpretation of the text. In interpreting a text, the minister must look at the historical context of the passage and the language used by the writer. The most pressing issue faced by those who preach from the Old Testament is how to interpret the message of a text that was written centuries ago in such a way that it becomes relevant to people living in the twenty-first century.
There are many ways to preach from the Old Testament. One way to make the Old Testament relevant for people today is to interpret it in the light of the complete work of Jesus Christ. Often, this method of interpretation requires a spiritualization of a biblical passage at the cost of the grammatical-historical sense of the text. The spiritualization of the Old Testament degrades the historical value of the text and brings into the text a secondary meaning that was not present in the original intent of the writer or that is not present in the actual reading of the text.
Some preachers devalue the text of the Old Testament by adding meaning to words and events in order to produce a developed doctrine of the teachings of the New Testament. Bernard Ramm, in his book Protestant Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1970), p. 50, said that “allegorists might find something far richer about Jesus Christ and salvation in Genesis than in Luke.”
Take for instance the story of the sacrifice of Isaac in Genesis 22. At the command of God, Abraham took his beloved son Isaac to sacrifice him on the top of a mountain that the Lord had chosen. God’s request evoked deep feelings in Abraham, and yet, contrary to human desires, Abraham obeyed the divine command, took his son, and prepared to do what God had demanded of him.
As Abraham and Isaac walked to the designated place, Isaac sensing that something was missing, asked his father, “Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” (Genesis 22:7 KJV). Abraham’s answer to Isaac is a declaration of faith and confidence in God. Abraham said to his son, “My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering” (Genesis 22:8 KJV).
Abraham’s reply does not answer Isaac’s question. As Walter Brueggemann wrote in his commentary on Genesis (Genesis [Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982], p. 188): “Abraham does not tell Isaac all he wants to know because Abraham himself does not know.”
The translation of verse 8 as it appears in the King James Version is not very clear. As the King James Version translates, it seems that God will provide himself as the lamb for the sacrifice. And this is how M. R. DeHann understood the verse. In his book, Portraits of Christ in Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1966), p. 139, DeHaan wrote: “Notice it does not say ‘God will himself provide a lamb,’ but it says, ‘God will provide himself.’ Translated freely Abraham says God Himself is going to be the Lamb of sacrifice.”
The problem with the King James Version is that in translating verse 8, the translators of the KJV did not translate a preposition (“for”) and a definite article (“the”). If the translators had paid attention to these minor details, the translation would read like this: “God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering” (Genesis 22:8 ESV).
The translation of Genesis 22:8 in the English Standard Version (ESV) is much superior to the translation of the King James Version (KJV). Had Dr. DeHaan used the ESV, he would have no grounds to preach that God was providing himself as the sacrificial lamb.
I am sure that Dr. DeHaan’s sermon was a blessing and inspired many people who heard that interpretation of Genesis 22:8. However, just because a sermon is inspiring and even life-changing, it does not mean that it is true to the real meaning of the text. The writer of Genesis 22:8 never intended to say that God would offer himself as a sacrificial lamb. It is only a poor interpretation of a flawed translation that can produce a sermon that completely misunderstands the original meaning of the writer.
This brings me back to the preacher. There are three lessons that every preacher must learn in the preparation of sermons. First, it is important to check the original languages to ascertain whether a translation is close to the original meaning of the text. Second, since most preachers cannot read Hebrew and Greek, it becomes imperative that preachers consult more than one translation in the preparation of their sermons and compare how different translations translate the text being used as the basis for the sermon.
The third lesson preachers must learn is this: there is no substitute for personal study and hard work. Preaching God’s word is a great responsibility. Preachers must work hard to make sure that the message they preach was given to them by God and that the message they preach reflects the truth of the text.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Friday, January 13, 2006
Jeremiah and Pashhur
The ministry of the prophet Jeremiah was very difficult because of the opposition he faced from the people and the leaders of the nation because of the message he proclaimed. Jeremiah was called to urge Israel to turn back to God. Israel was urged by the prophet to obey the demands of the covenant established on Mt. Sinai between God and the nation. Failure to obey would invoke the curses of the covenant against the nation and, as a result, the people would be taken into exile by Babylon.
Jeremiah believed that Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, was acting as God’s agent who would enforce the curses of the covenant by besieging the city and eventually taking the people into exile. Jeremiah declared to the people that rebellion against Nebuchadnezzar was rebellion against God. In order to show his intentions to the nation, the Lord commanded Jeremiah to take a scroll and write down the oracles he had been preaching since the days of Josiah as a warning to Judah (Jeremiah 36:1-4). According to Jeremiah, Nebuchadnezzar would conquer and subjugate the nations with God’s approval. Jeremiah said:
Now I will hand all your countries over to my servant Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; I will make even the wild animals subject to him. All nations will serve him and his son and his grandson until the time for his land comes; then many nations and great kings will subjugate him (Jeremiah 27:6-7).
One of the people who opposed Jeremiah was Pashhur. He was a priest, the son of Immer, and the “chief officer in the house of the LORD” (Jeremiah 20:1). His title indicates that Pashhur was the leader of those Levites who were in charge of maintaining order and decorum in the Temple area.
Unhappy with Jeremiah’s message of destruction, Pashhur struck Jeremiah and put him in prison overnight. It was a painful and humiliating experience for Jeremiah. After Jeremiah came out of prison the next day, Jeremiah told Pashhur that he and his family would experience the pain of the terrible events that would soon afflict the nation. Jeremiah told Pashhur: “And you, Pashhur, and all who live in your house, shall go into captivity, and to Babylon you shall go; there you shall die, and there you shall be buried, you and all your friends, to whom you have prophesied falsely” (Jeremiah 20:6).
We have no information of what happened to Pashhur’s family during the Babylonian invasion, but the book of Ezra and Nehemiah confirm that some of the descendants of Immer returned from exile. In fact, until recently, we knew nothing about Pashhur’s family.
A recent archaeological discovery in Israel has provided valuable information about Pashhur’s family. Archaeologists in Israel, doing work on tons of rubble taken from construction remains at the Temple Mount, have discovered a bulla that is related to this event in the life of Jeremiah that dates back to more than three thousand years. A bulla is a lump of clay bearing an official seal impression that is used to close a document.
According to Gabriel Barkai, an archaeologist at Bar-Ilan University, and his team of students and volunteers, the “bulla,” bears the name Gedalyahu Ben Immer Ha-Cohen. The name of the owner indicates that he probably was the brother of Pashhur Ben Immer, the same Pashhur that opposed Jeremiah and the message the prophet preached (to read the news release, click here).
This discovery is very significant for two reasons. First, the Bible does not say that Pashhur had a brother named Gedaliah, even though the Book of Jeremiah says that Pashhur had a son named Gedaliah (Jeremiah 38:1). Second, once again archaeology is providing vital information that helps biblical scholars affirm that the events in the Bible are based on actual historical events.
Biblical archaeology today is in transition. The issue of how to evaluate the findings at times faces the problem of human subjectivity in the matters of reconstruction, evaluation, and interpretation. However, the fact remains that biblical archaeology provides illustrations, and at times, confirmation, of biblical events. The integrity of the biblical message does not depend on archaeological findings. However, archaeology can provide a wealth of information that can aid us in understanding the biblical text better.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Jeremiah believed that Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, was acting as God’s agent who would enforce the curses of the covenant by besieging the city and eventually taking the people into exile. Jeremiah declared to the people that rebellion against Nebuchadnezzar was rebellion against God. In order to show his intentions to the nation, the Lord commanded Jeremiah to take a scroll and write down the oracles he had been preaching since the days of Josiah as a warning to Judah (Jeremiah 36:1-4). According to Jeremiah, Nebuchadnezzar would conquer and subjugate the nations with God’s approval. Jeremiah said:
Now I will hand all your countries over to my servant Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; I will make even the wild animals subject to him. All nations will serve him and his son and his grandson until the time for his land comes; then many nations and great kings will subjugate him (Jeremiah 27:6-7).
One of the people who opposed Jeremiah was Pashhur. He was a priest, the son of Immer, and the “chief officer in the house of the LORD” (Jeremiah 20:1). His title indicates that Pashhur was the leader of those Levites who were in charge of maintaining order and decorum in the Temple area.
Unhappy with Jeremiah’s message of destruction, Pashhur struck Jeremiah and put him in prison overnight. It was a painful and humiliating experience for Jeremiah. After Jeremiah came out of prison the next day, Jeremiah told Pashhur that he and his family would experience the pain of the terrible events that would soon afflict the nation. Jeremiah told Pashhur: “And you, Pashhur, and all who live in your house, shall go into captivity, and to Babylon you shall go; there you shall die, and there you shall be buried, you and all your friends, to whom you have prophesied falsely” (Jeremiah 20:6).
We have no information of what happened to Pashhur’s family during the Babylonian invasion, but the book of Ezra and Nehemiah confirm that some of the descendants of Immer returned from exile. In fact, until recently, we knew nothing about Pashhur’s family.
A recent archaeological discovery in Israel has provided valuable information about Pashhur’s family. Archaeologists in Israel, doing work on tons of rubble taken from construction remains at the Temple Mount, have discovered a bulla that is related to this event in the life of Jeremiah that dates back to more than three thousand years. A bulla is a lump of clay bearing an official seal impression that is used to close a document.
According to Gabriel Barkai, an archaeologist at Bar-Ilan University, and his team of students and volunteers, the “bulla,” bears the name Gedalyahu Ben Immer Ha-Cohen. The name of the owner indicates that he probably was the brother of Pashhur Ben Immer, the same Pashhur that opposed Jeremiah and the message the prophet preached (to read the news release, click here).
This discovery is very significant for two reasons. First, the Bible does not say that Pashhur had a brother named Gedaliah, even though the Book of Jeremiah says that Pashhur had a son named Gedaliah (Jeremiah 38:1). Second, once again archaeology is providing vital information that helps biblical scholars affirm that the events in the Bible are based on actual historical events.
Biblical archaeology today is in transition. The issue of how to evaluate the findings at times faces the problem of human subjectivity in the matters of reconstruction, evaluation, and interpretation. However, the fact remains that biblical archaeology provides illustrations, and at times, confirmation, of biblical events. The integrity of the biblical message does not depend on archaeological findings. However, archaeology can provide a wealth of information that can aid us in understanding the biblical text better.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Old Testament Bad
People who live in Kentucky love basketball. Kentuckians eat, drink, and breathe basketball. In general, people in Kentucky root either for the University of Kentucky Wildcats or for the University of Louisville Cardinals.
The University of Kentucky has a great and historical men’s basketball program. The rich basketball tradition of the University of Kentucky has produced a program that is recognized throughout the nation. To many Kentuckians, basketball holds a special place in their lives. It is as important as religion.
Therefore, it was a shock and a big disappointment for Kentucky fans when on Saturday, January 7, the Kentucky Wildcats lost to the Kansas Jayhawks by the score of 73-46. In addition, to compound the embarrassment for Kentucky, that was the biggest defeat for Tubby Smith since he became coach of Kentucky nine seasons ago. However, for us Louisville fans, Kentucky’s defeat was no great tragedy.
So despondent were the Kentucky fans that they did not have words to describe this ugly defeat of their beloved team. To Jerry Tipton, a staff writer for the Lexington Herald-Leader, Kentucky’s defeat was a tragedy of biblical proportions. In describing Kentucky’s performance against Kansas, Mr. Tipton wrote, “Kentucky (10-4) was Old Testament bad” (to read the article, click here).
I have to confess that this is the first time in my career as a professor that I have seen the Old Testament used as an adjective to describe something bad. Probably only those who attended the game and saw how poorly Kentucky played could give a good definition of “Old Testament bad.”
To Mr. Tipton the bad game Kentucky played was comparable to the plagues against Egypt. In his description of the game, Mr. Tipton wrote, “In this plague of a game, the Cats did not have an assist until the 14:20 mark of the second half.” Now, that is “Old Testament bad.”
This made me think: what else in life could be considered “Old Testament bad?” The recent flooding of New Orleans could be called Old Testament bad.
I searched the Old Testament and found some examples of Old Testament bad. God told the prophet Ezekiel, “Take wheat and barley, beans and lentils, millet and spelt; put them into one vessel, and make bread for yourself. You shall eat it as a barley-cake, baking it in their sight on human dung” (Ezek. 4:9, 12). Now, that food is Old Testament bad. So, from now on, when you go to a restaurant and the food is tasteless or bad, you can say the food was Old Testament bad.
Let us say that you are going about your business as Elisha was when some small boys began to make fun at him saying, “Go away, baldhead! Go away, baldhead!” (2 Kings 2:23). The behavior of those boys was Old Testament bad. Therefore, if people despise you, and their behavior is obnoxious, you can say that those people are Old Testament bad. Or if your barber gives you a haircut that reminds you of the haircut Delilah gave to Samson, you can explain to others that the haircut is Old Testament bad.
Now, if the 73-46 defeat of Kentucky by Kansas was Old Testament bad, how should we classify the 1989 game where Kansas beat Kentucky 150-95? That game was as bad as a shipwreck in the midst of Noah’s flood, as unintelligible as the Tower of Babel, or as devastating as the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Maybe Kentucky’s performance in that game was just Old Testament awful.
Claude F. Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
The University of Kentucky has a great and historical men’s basketball program. The rich basketball tradition of the University of Kentucky has produced a program that is recognized throughout the nation. To many Kentuckians, basketball holds a special place in their lives. It is as important as religion.
Therefore, it was a shock and a big disappointment for Kentucky fans when on Saturday, January 7, the Kentucky Wildcats lost to the Kansas Jayhawks by the score of 73-46. In addition, to compound the embarrassment for Kentucky, that was the biggest defeat for Tubby Smith since he became coach of Kentucky nine seasons ago. However, for us Louisville fans, Kentucky’s defeat was no great tragedy.
So despondent were the Kentucky fans that they did not have words to describe this ugly defeat of their beloved team. To Jerry Tipton, a staff writer for the Lexington Herald-Leader, Kentucky’s defeat was a tragedy of biblical proportions. In describing Kentucky’s performance against Kansas, Mr. Tipton wrote, “Kentucky (10-4) was Old Testament bad” (to read the article, click here).
I have to confess that this is the first time in my career as a professor that I have seen the Old Testament used as an adjective to describe something bad. Probably only those who attended the game and saw how poorly Kentucky played could give a good definition of “Old Testament bad.”
To Mr. Tipton the bad game Kentucky played was comparable to the plagues against Egypt. In his description of the game, Mr. Tipton wrote, “In this plague of a game, the Cats did not have an assist until the 14:20 mark of the second half.” Now, that is “Old Testament bad.”
This made me think: what else in life could be considered “Old Testament bad?” The recent flooding of New Orleans could be called Old Testament bad.
I searched the Old Testament and found some examples of Old Testament bad. God told the prophet Ezekiel, “Take wheat and barley, beans and lentils, millet and spelt; put them into one vessel, and make bread for yourself. You shall eat it as a barley-cake, baking it in their sight on human dung” (Ezek. 4:9, 12). Now, that food is Old Testament bad. So, from now on, when you go to a restaurant and the food is tasteless or bad, you can say the food was Old Testament bad.
Let us say that you are going about your business as Elisha was when some small boys began to make fun at him saying, “Go away, baldhead! Go away, baldhead!” (2 Kings 2:23). The behavior of those boys was Old Testament bad. Therefore, if people despise you, and their behavior is obnoxious, you can say that those people are Old Testament bad. Or if your barber gives you a haircut that reminds you of the haircut Delilah gave to Samson, you can explain to others that the haircut is Old Testament bad.
Now, if the 73-46 defeat of Kentucky by Kansas was Old Testament bad, how should we classify the 1989 game where Kansas beat Kentucky 150-95? That game was as bad as a shipwreck in the midst of Noah’s flood, as unintelligible as the Tower of Babel, or as devastating as the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Maybe Kentucky’s performance in that game was just Old Testament awful.
Claude F. Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Friday, January 06, 2006
Rereading Judges 19:2
The story of the Levite and his concubine in Judges 19:1-30 is a sad story. It is a story that brings together a man and a woman who lived in the chaotic days that preceded the establishment of the monarchy in Israel. It was a time when “there was no king in Israel” and “people did what was right in their own eyes” (Judges 17:6). If you have not read this story in the past few months, this is a good time to read it again.
The biblical text presents the story of a woman, the concubine of a Levite, who leaves her home to return to the house of her father. The Levite, a man from Ephraim, goes to Bethlehem to bring his concubine back with him to their home. After much reluctance on the woman’s part, and at the insistence of her father, the woman agrees to return home with her husband.
On the way back they spent the night in Gibeah of Benjamin. While in Gibeah, some men of the city make an attempt at having a homosexual affair with the Levite. Because of his fear of violence against him, the Levite gives his concubine to the men of the city, who raped her over and over again all that night. The next morning the woman dies, the Levite cut her into twelve pieces and sent the parts of her body to the twelve tribes of Israel.
In light of the tragedy that resulted in the woman’s death and the dismemberment of her body by the hands of her own husband, a question lingers: why did she leave her home to return to her father’s house? Why did she leave the protection of her husband?
According to the King James Version (KJV), she left her home because she had played the whore against him: And his concubine played the whore against him, and went away from him unto her father's house to Bethlehemjudah (Judges 19:2). Thus, according to the KJV, the woman committed adultery and for that reason, she left her husband.
The New International Version only says that she was unfaithful to him: She was unfaithful to him. She left him and went back to her father's house in Bethlehem, Judah. The view that the woman was unfaithful to her husband and had committed adultery is assumed by the American Standard Version (ASV), the Darby Bible, The English Standard Version (ESV), the Jewish Publication Society Bible (JPS), the New American Bible (NAB), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), the Today’s New International Version (TNIV), the New King James Version (NKJV), the New Living Bible (NLB), and the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB).
In his commentary on Judges, Matthew Henry wrote: “Had her husband turned her out of doors unjustly, her father ought to have pitied her affliction; but, when she treacherously departed from her husband to embrace the bosom of a stranger, her father ought not to have countenanced her sin. Perhaps she would not have violated her duty to her husband if she had not known too well where she should be kindly received.”
Matthew Henry also wrote: “The Levite went himself to court her return. It was a sign there was no king, no judge, in Israel, else she would have been prosecuted and put to death as an adulteress; but, instead of that, she is addressed in the kindest manner by her injured husband, who takes a long journey on purpose to beseech her to be reconciled, v. 3. If he had put her away, it would have been a crime in him to return to her again, Jer. iii. 1. But, she having gone away, it was a virtue in him to forgive the offence, and, though the party wronged, to make the first motion to her to be friends again.”
But, what is wrong with this statement? It is hard to believe that in a land where honor killing was very common, that a woman who played the whore against her husband, one who had been unfaithful to the marriage relationship would be allowed to return to her father’s house.
When Judah discovered that his daughter-in-law Tamar was pregnant, he was indignant. When Judah was told, “Your daughter-in-law Tamar has played the whore; moreover she is pregnant as a result of whoredom,” Judah was enraged: “Bring her out, and let her be burned” (Genesis 38:24). The same fate should have fallen upon the Levite’s concubine, but it did not. Therefore, there must be another explanation.
The word translated “played the whore” and “unfaithful” in Hebrew is zanah. The word has a primary meaning of committing fornication, being a harlot. However, according to Koehler-Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1958), 261, the word also can mean “to be angry, hateful” or to “feel repugnant against.”
Thus, taking the above meaning of the word, the translation of the NRSV makes better sense: But his concubine became angry with him, and she went away from him to her father's house at Bethlehem in Judah. This is the view also adopted by some ancient translations such as the Septuagint, the Targum, and the Vulgate. Neither of these ancient translations nor Josephus accused the woman of conjugal infidelity.
The view that the woman left her husband because of a domestic quarrel is adopted by the Revised Standard Version (RSV), the New Standard Revised Version (NRSV), the New English Bible (NEB), the Bible in Basic English (BBE), and the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB).
It is clear that this reading of Judges 19:2 does not presuppose an act of conjugal infidelity by the Levite’s concubine. This translation points to the fact that husband and wife had a fight and in anger, the woman left her husband and returned to her father’s house.
The social and cultural backgrounds of the story tend to affirm the correctness of this translation. If the concubine had played the whore and been unfaithful to her husband, her husband would not have gone after his concubine to return her to his home. Since she was a secondary wife, it is quite probable that he would invoke the tradition of honor killing and have her put to death for her unfaithfulness.
The KJV’s translation places the blame for the problem on the woman: she was the one who committed adultery and left. The NRSV’s translation places the blame on the husband: he did something so outrageous that in anger she left the security of her home to find security in the house of her father. In his explanation of what happened between the Levite and his concubine, Josephus wrote: “They quarreled one with another perpetually; and at last the woman was so disgusted at these quarrels, that she left her husband and went [back] to her parents.”
It is evident that this rereading of Judges 19:2 reflects a better understanding of what happened between the Levite and his concubine. The fact seems to be that husband and wife had a big fight, that she probably was afraid for her life, and that she tried to find security and protection in the house of her father.
The end of the story seems to demonstrate the basis for her fear. The Levite left his home to “speak to her heart,” to convince her to come home. Although the father of the woman was eager for reconciliation, it seems that she was reluctant to go with him. His willingness to sacrifice his concubine in order to save his honor may indicate that the woman’s fear was real. His selfishness demonstrates that in the end, he loved himself more than he loved her.
It becomes imperative that the biblical text be reread in light of this new understanding of the social and cultural conditions of ancient Israel. Today’s generation of Bible students need to know that this unnamed woman was not a whore nor was she unfaithful to her husband. Only by rereading the text will today’s readers discover that all the accusations lodged against this woman were false. May this rereading of the text vindicate her reputation.
Rest in peace.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
The biblical text presents the story of a woman, the concubine of a Levite, who leaves her home to return to the house of her father. The Levite, a man from Ephraim, goes to Bethlehem to bring his concubine back with him to their home. After much reluctance on the woman’s part, and at the insistence of her father, the woman agrees to return home with her husband.
On the way back they spent the night in Gibeah of Benjamin. While in Gibeah, some men of the city make an attempt at having a homosexual affair with the Levite. Because of his fear of violence against him, the Levite gives his concubine to the men of the city, who raped her over and over again all that night. The next morning the woman dies, the Levite cut her into twelve pieces and sent the parts of her body to the twelve tribes of Israel.
In light of the tragedy that resulted in the woman’s death and the dismemberment of her body by the hands of her own husband, a question lingers: why did she leave her home to return to her father’s house? Why did she leave the protection of her husband?
According to the King James Version (KJV), she left her home because she had played the whore against him: And his concubine played the whore against him, and went away from him unto her father's house to Bethlehemjudah (Judges 19:2). Thus, according to the KJV, the woman committed adultery and for that reason, she left her husband.
The New International Version only says that she was unfaithful to him: She was unfaithful to him. She left him and went back to her father's house in Bethlehem, Judah. The view that the woman was unfaithful to her husband and had committed adultery is assumed by the American Standard Version (ASV), the Darby Bible, The English Standard Version (ESV), the Jewish Publication Society Bible (JPS), the New American Bible (NAB), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), the Today’s New International Version (TNIV), the New King James Version (NKJV), the New Living Bible (NLB), and the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB).
In his commentary on Judges, Matthew Henry wrote: “Had her husband turned her out of doors unjustly, her father ought to have pitied her affliction; but, when she treacherously departed from her husband to embrace the bosom of a stranger, her father ought not to have countenanced her sin. Perhaps she would not have violated her duty to her husband if she had not known too well where she should be kindly received.”
Matthew Henry also wrote: “The Levite went himself to court her return. It was a sign there was no king, no judge, in Israel, else she would have been prosecuted and put to death as an adulteress; but, instead of that, she is addressed in the kindest manner by her injured husband, who takes a long journey on purpose to beseech her to be reconciled, v. 3. If he had put her away, it would have been a crime in him to return to her again, Jer. iii. 1. But, she having gone away, it was a virtue in him to forgive the offence, and, though the party wronged, to make the first motion to her to be friends again.”
But, what is wrong with this statement? It is hard to believe that in a land where honor killing was very common, that a woman who played the whore against her husband, one who had been unfaithful to the marriage relationship would be allowed to return to her father’s house.
When Judah discovered that his daughter-in-law Tamar was pregnant, he was indignant. When Judah was told, “Your daughter-in-law Tamar has played the whore; moreover she is pregnant as a result of whoredom,” Judah was enraged: “Bring her out, and let her be burned” (Genesis 38:24). The same fate should have fallen upon the Levite’s concubine, but it did not. Therefore, there must be another explanation.
The word translated “played the whore” and “unfaithful” in Hebrew is zanah. The word has a primary meaning of committing fornication, being a harlot. However, according to Koehler-Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1958), 261, the word also can mean “to be angry, hateful” or to “feel repugnant against.”
Thus, taking the above meaning of the word, the translation of the NRSV makes better sense: But his concubine became angry with him, and she went away from him to her father's house at Bethlehem in Judah. This is the view also adopted by some ancient translations such as the Septuagint, the Targum, and the Vulgate. Neither of these ancient translations nor Josephus accused the woman of conjugal infidelity.
The view that the woman left her husband because of a domestic quarrel is adopted by the Revised Standard Version (RSV), the New Standard Revised Version (NRSV), the New English Bible (NEB), the Bible in Basic English (BBE), and the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB).
It is clear that this reading of Judges 19:2 does not presuppose an act of conjugal infidelity by the Levite’s concubine. This translation points to the fact that husband and wife had a fight and in anger, the woman left her husband and returned to her father’s house.
The social and cultural backgrounds of the story tend to affirm the correctness of this translation. If the concubine had played the whore and been unfaithful to her husband, her husband would not have gone after his concubine to return her to his home. Since she was a secondary wife, it is quite probable that he would invoke the tradition of honor killing and have her put to death for her unfaithfulness.
The KJV’s translation places the blame for the problem on the woman: she was the one who committed adultery and left. The NRSV’s translation places the blame on the husband: he did something so outrageous that in anger she left the security of her home to find security in the house of her father. In his explanation of what happened between the Levite and his concubine, Josephus wrote: “They quarreled one with another perpetually; and at last the woman was so disgusted at these quarrels, that she left her husband and went [back] to her parents.”
It is evident that this rereading of Judges 19:2 reflects a better understanding of what happened between the Levite and his concubine. The fact seems to be that husband and wife had a big fight, that she probably was afraid for her life, and that she tried to find security and protection in the house of her father.
The end of the story seems to demonstrate the basis for her fear. The Levite left his home to “speak to her heart,” to convince her to come home. Although the father of the woman was eager for reconciliation, it seems that she was reluctant to go with him. His willingness to sacrifice his concubine in order to save his honor may indicate that the woman’s fear was real. His selfishness demonstrates that in the end, he loved himself more than he loved her.
It becomes imperative that the biblical text be reread in light of this new understanding of the social and cultural conditions of ancient Israel. Today’s generation of Bible students need to know that this unnamed woman was not a whore nor was she unfaithful to her husband. Only by rereading the text will today’s readers discover that all the accusations lodged against this woman were false. May this rereading of the text vindicate her reputation.
Rest in peace.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Thursday, January 05, 2006
The Discovery of David’s Palace
On October 31, 2005, I published an article announcing the discovery of the remains of David’s palace in Jerusalem by Israeli archaeologist Eilat Mazar. The announcement of Mazar’s discovery was based on a news report about the finding (to read the article, click here).
In another article dated November 4, 2005, I wrote that the discovery of a bulla containing the name of Shevi, the father of Shelemiah, and the grandfather of Jehucal was important because this information does not appear in the Old Testament (to read this article, click here). On a subsequent article published on November 7, 2005, I wrote about a note I received from Mazar in which she confirmed that the bulla mentions the name of Jehucal’s grandfather, something that does not occur in other bullae (to read this article, click here).
Eilat Mazar has now published an article detailing the reasons she believes the building she discovered south of the Temple Mount was David’s palace. Her article, “Did I Find King David’s Palace?” was published in the January/February 2006 issue of the Biblical Archaeology Review. I encourage you to read Mazar’s article. You will discover how she arrived at the conclusion as to where David’s palace was (to read the article online, click here).
For those who are interested in knowing more about the archaeology of the Bible, I strongly recommend that you subscribe to the Biblical Archeology Review. The magazine is for the serious reader who is not afraid to deal with the serious issues that, at times, are raised by archaeological discoveries (if you want to subscribe to the magazine, click here).
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
In another article dated November 4, 2005, I wrote that the discovery of a bulla containing the name of Shevi, the father of Shelemiah, and the grandfather of Jehucal was important because this information does not appear in the Old Testament (to read this article, click here). On a subsequent article published on November 7, 2005, I wrote about a note I received from Mazar in which she confirmed that the bulla mentions the name of Jehucal’s grandfather, something that does not occur in other bullae (to read this article, click here).
Eilat Mazar has now published an article detailing the reasons she believes the building she discovered south of the Temple Mount was David’s palace. Her article, “Did I Find King David’s Palace?” was published in the January/February 2006 issue of the Biblical Archaeology Review. I encourage you to read Mazar’s article. You will discover how she arrived at the conclusion as to where David’s palace was (to read the article online, click here).
For those who are interested in knowing more about the archaeology of the Bible, I strongly recommend that you subscribe to the Biblical Archeology Review. The magazine is for the serious reader who is not afraid to deal with the serious issues that, at times, are raised by archaeological discoveries (if you want to subscribe to the magazine, click here).
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
The 12 Days of Christmas: The True Story
On Monday, January 2nd, 2006, The Daily Press, a morning newspaper in Ashland, Wisconsin, published an article, “The true meaning of the '12 Days of Christmas’: 'Eternal Perspectives,'” written by Sally Bair. The article’s purpose is to tell the true story behind this famous Christmas Carol.
According to the story, the song was written to teach religious truths to Roman Catholic children. Since several items in the interpretation of the song deal with the Old Testament, I was interested in the many lessons the song has to teach. Below is a copy of the article published in The Daily Press.
The familiar, nonsensical-sounding song, "The Twelve Days of Christmas," is traditionally sung—and celebrated with gifts—after Christmas, the time when the magi are believed to have visited the baby Jesus.
The famous song was written with hidden meanings in mind for Roman Catholic children. Between 1558 and 1829, Catholics were prohibited in England to practice their faith. Punishments for being caught with anything in writing that proved one's adherence to the Catholic faith meant imprisonment, hanging from a gallows, or worse. The author of The Twelve Days of Christmas wrote the song to help young Catholics secretly learn—and memorize—the tenets of their faith.
"On the first day of Christmas, my true love gave to me" refers to God himself as our True Love and Me as every baptized believer. The Partridge in a Pear Tree is Jesus Christ who symbolizes a mother bird, which feigns injury to protect her helpless nestlings. The symbol comes from Jesus' words written in Luke 13:34, "O Jerusalem, Jerusale,[sic] how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!"
The other "gifts" in the song hold these meanings:
2 Turtle Doves (the Old and New Testaments, bearing witness to God's redeeming work of salvation to mankind);
3 French Hens (the virtues: faith, hope, and love; and the trinity: God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit);
4 Calling Birds (the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which proclaim the Good News of God's reconciliation to himself through his Son Jesus Christ);
5 Gold Rings (the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament which give the historic account of mankind's sinful failure and God's responding grace);
6 Geese A-laying (the six days of creation that confess God as creator and sustainer of the world);
7 Swans A-swimming (the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit: prophecy, ministry, teaching, exhortation, giving, leading, and compassion);
8 Maids A-milking (the eight beatitudes as listed in Matthew 5:3-10);
9 Ladies Dancing (the nine fruits of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control);
10 Lords A-leaping (the ten commandments);
11 Pipers Piping (the 11 faithful apostles, excluding Judas Iscariot, the 12th apostle who betrayed Jesus with a kiss);
12 Drummers Drumming (the twelve points of doctrine in the Apostle's Creed).
Lord, we thank you that today in American we can profess our faith in Jesus Christ openly and without fear. We ask for your special blessing on Christians in other lands who are persecuted for your Namesake. Amen. (To read the story as it was published in The Daily Press, click here)
This explanation of the meaning of the words of the song would be of great value if it were true. However, this spiritualization of ‘The 12 Days of Christmas” is one of those urban legends that is circulated through the Internet and passed on from person to person through email (to read the true story about this song, click here).
There are several lessons to be learned from this article. The lesson that every journalist should learn is this: “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.”
Claude F. Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
According to the story, the song was written to teach religious truths to Roman Catholic children. Since several items in the interpretation of the song deal with the Old Testament, I was interested in the many lessons the song has to teach. Below is a copy of the article published in The Daily Press.
The familiar, nonsensical-sounding song, "The Twelve Days of Christmas," is traditionally sung—and celebrated with gifts—after Christmas, the time when the magi are believed to have visited the baby Jesus.
The famous song was written with hidden meanings in mind for Roman Catholic children. Between 1558 and 1829, Catholics were prohibited in England to practice their faith. Punishments for being caught with anything in writing that proved one's adherence to the Catholic faith meant imprisonment, hanging from a gallows, or worse. The author of The Twelve Days of Christmas wrote the song to help young Catholics secretly learn—and memorize—the tenets of their faith.
"On the first day of Christmas, my true love gave to me" refers to God himself as our True Love and Me as every baptized believer. The Partridge in a Pear Tree is Jesus Christ who symbolizes a mother bird, which feigns injury to protect her helpless nestlings. The symbol comes from Jesus' words written in Luke 13:34, "O Jerusalem, Jerusale,[sic] how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!"
The other "gifts" in the song hold these meanings:
2 Turtle Doves (the Old and New Testaments, bearing witness to God's redeeming work of salvation to mankind);
3 French Hens (the virtues: faith, hope, and love; and the trinity: God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit);
4 Calling Birds (the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which proclaim the Good News of God's reconciliation to himself through his Son Jesus Christ);
5 Gold Rings (the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament which give the historic account of mankind's sinful failure and God's responding grace);
6 Geese A-laying (the six days of creation that confess God as creator and sustainer of the world);
7 Swans A-swimming (the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit: prophecy, ministry, teaching, exhortation, giving, leading, and compassion);
8 Maids A-milking (the eight beatitudes as listed in Matthew 5:3-10);
9 Ladies Dancing (the nine fruits of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control);
10 Lords A-leaping (the ten commandments);
11 Pipers Piping (the 11 faithful apostles, excluding Judas Iscariot, the 12th apostle who betrayed Jesus with a kiss);
12 Drummers Drumming (the twelve points of doctrine in the Apostle's Creed).
Lord, we thank you that today in American we can profess our faith in Jesus Christ openly and without fear. We ask for your special blessing on Christians in other lands who are persecuted for your Namesake. Amen. (To read the story as it was published in The Daily Press, click here)
This explanation of the meaning of the words of the song would be of great value if it were true. However, this spiritualization of ‘The 12 Days of Christmas” is one of those urban legends that is circulated through the Internet and passed on from person to person through email (to read the true story about this song, click here).
There are several lessons to be learned from this article. The lesson that every journalist should learn is this: “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.”
Claude F. Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Monday, January 02, 2006
The Ten Most Influential People in the History of the Church
Several weeks ago, my son asked me to name the ten most influential people who made an impact on the history of the church since the days of Christ. This request proved to be very challenging, so I decided to select ten people who, I believe, have made an impact on the life of the church.
I am not a church historian. Thus, the names I have selected probably will not meet with universal acceptance by those who spend their time studying and evaluating the great movements and people who made an impact on the history of Christianity.
A factor that makes the selection difficult is that, in two thousand years, there were hundreds of people who, in one way or another, have made an impact on history of the Church. Thus, to select only ten people may be a little presumptuous. What were the qualifications applied to select these ten most influential people? The only criteria I applied were that the people selected had either a lasting effect on the life and work of the church or their lives and work had more than just a local impact. With these caveats in place, here is my list of the ten most influential people who made an impact on the history of Christianity.
1. The Apostle Paul
Paul’s conversion to Christianity was a turning point in the history of the church. With the support of the church in Antioch, Paul went on several missionary journeys preaching to the Gentiles. Paul preached that Gentile believers did not have to observe Jewish laws. His ministry opened the doors for the evangelization of the Gentile world and helped Christianity to stand on its own rather than becoming a Jewish sect. The work of Paul helped to establish Christianity as a world religion.
2. Constantine
He was the first Roman emperor to become sympathetic to Christianity. In 313 Constantine issued the Edict of Milan legalizing Christianity, returning properties confiscated from Christians, and granting special privileges to the church. Under his protection, Christianity enjoyed a period of growth and gained acceptance in the Roman Empire.
3. Athanasius
He was one of the Christian theologians who opposed Arianism. Arius believed the pre-incarnate Jesus was divine but that he was created by God and therefore, there was at time when the Son did not exist. In 325 Athanasius attended the Council of Nice, which condemned Arianism as a heresy. He wrote extensively defending the eternity of the relationship between Father and Son.
4. Augustine
He was an important theologian and thinker, whose writings have made an impact on the history of the church. Augustine's writings against Pelagius, who did not believe in original sin, helped the Catholic Church develop its doctrine of original sin. His writings on predestination influenced some of the reformers, especially John Calvin. He is also credited with formulating a theory of the just war.
5. Jerome
Jerome is known as a biblical translator. In 405 he completed his translation of the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into Latin. His translation, known as the Vulgate, became the official translation of the Bible for the Roman Catholic Church.
6. Thomas Aquinas
Thomas Aquinas is considered the most important theologian of the Catholic Church. He used Aristotle’s philosophy to produce his theological writings. Aquinas believed reason and faith can become allies in the proper expression of the Christian faith. Aquinas was a prolific writer, who is better known by his work Summa Theologica.
7. Teresa of Avila
Teresa of Avila was a Spanish Carmelite nun. She is also known as Teresa de Jesús. She is better known for her religious mysticism. After entering the convent, she became seriously ill.
During this period of sickness, she experienced spiritual ecstasy through the reading of mystic writings. Her prayers and poems have become classical expositions of the contemplative life. Teresa of Avila became the first woman to be declared a Doctor of the Church.
8. Martin Luther
Luther was a German priest whose teaching gave birth to the Protestant Reformation. In 1517, Luther posted 95 theses on the door of the church in Wittenberg protesting against the sale of indulgences and other abuses of the church. The theses questioned the church’s teaching on indulgences and called for reform. Luther called the church to return to the teachings of the Bible. When the church refused his call for reformation, he broke away from the church. He translated the Bible into German and made God’s Word available in the language of the people.
9. John Calvin
John Calvin was an influential French Christian theologian during the Protestant Reformation. He was a great expositor of the Bible and the author of the Institutes of the Christian Religion published in 1536. In his teachings, Calvin emphasized the doctrine of salvation by grace rather than by works. His teachings form the basis for the theological system known as Calvinism.
10. John Wesley
John Wesley was an Anglican minister who became the founder of the Methodist Church. The early Methodist movement was known by its social work, charitable ministries, and missionary activities. John and his brother Charles were dedicated evangelists and hymn writers. The Methodist church grew because of Wesley’s commitment to preach the gospel to the masses.
There you have it; the names of ten people I believe had a great impact on the history of the church. However, there are many others who should also appear on this list. In addition to the ten people listed above, I could have mentioned the apostles Peter and John, but they were contemporary with Jesus.
I could also have mentioned John Chrysostom, an important Christian bishop in Constantinople who was famous for his oratory, Leo the Great, who is widely considered to be the first Pope and who stopped the invasion of Rome by Attila the Hun, Pope John Paul II, who is credited as one of the forces which brought about the fall of Communism, or even Billy Graham who has touched the lives of millions of people through his evangelistic crusades. I could have mentioned many others, but I was asked to mention only ten people.
NOTE: My blog has moved to a new address. If you enjoyed reading this post, you can subscribe to my blog by visiting my web page or subscribing to my blog here:
Dr. Claude Mariottini
Subscription
Claude F. Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
I am not a church historian. Thus, the names I have selected probably will not meet with universal acceptance by those who spend their time studying and evaluating the great movements and people who made an impact on the history of Christianity.
A factor that makes the selection difficult is that, in two thousand years, there were hundreds of people who, in one way or another, have made an impact on history of the Church. Thus, to select only ten people may be a little presumptuous. What were the qualifications applied to select these ten most influential people? The only criteria I applied were that the people selected had either a lasting effect on the life and work of the church or their lives and work had more than just a local impact. With these caveats in place, here is my list of the ten most influential people who made an impact on the history of Christianity.
1. The Apostle Paul
Paul’s conversion to Christianity was a turning point in the history of the church. With the support of the church in Antioch, Paul went on several missionary journeys preaching to the Gentiles. Paul preached that Gentile believers did not have to observe Jewish laws. His ministry opened the doors for the evangelization of the Gentile world and helped Christianity to stand on its own rather than becoming a Jewish sect. The work of Paul helped to establish Christianity as a world religion.
2. Constantine
He was the first Roman emperor to become sympathetic to Christianity. In 313 Constantine issued the Edict of Milan legalizing Christianity, returning properties confiscated from Christians, and granting special privileges to the church. Under his protection, Christianity enjoyed a period of growth and gained acceptance in the Roman Empire.
3. Athanasius
He was one of the Christian theologians who opposed Arianism. Arius believed the pre-incarnate Jesus was divine but that he was created by God and therefore, there was at time when the Son did not exist. In 325 Athanasius attended the Council of Nice, which condemned Arianism as a heresy. He wrote extensively defending the eternity of the relationship between Father and Son.
4. Augustine
He was an important theologian and thinker, whose writings have made an impact on the history of the church. Augustine's writings against Pelagius, who did not believe in original sin, helped the Catholic Church develop its doctrine of original sin. His writings on predestination influenced some of the reformers, especially John Calvin. He is also credited with formulating a theory of the just war.
5. Jerome
Jerome is known as a biblical translator. In 405 he completed his translation of the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into Latin. His translation, known as the Vulgate, became the official translation of the Bible for the Roman Catholic Church.
6. Thomas Aquinas
Thomas Aquinas is considered the most important theologian of the Catholic Church. He used Aristotle’s philosophy to produce his theological writings. Aquinas believed reason and faith can become allies in the proper expression of the Christian faith. Aquinas was a prolific writer, who is better known by his work Summa Theologica.
7. Teresa of Avila
Teresa of Avila was a Spanish Carmelite nun. She is also known as Teresa de Jesús. She is better known for her religious mysticism. After entering the convent, she became seriously ill.
During this period of sickness, she experienced spiritual ecstasy through the reading of mystic writings. Her prayers and poems have become classical expositions of the contemplative life. Teresa of Avila became the first woman to be declared a Doctor of the Church.
8. Martin Luther
Luther was a German priest whose teaching gave birth to the Protestant Reformation. In 1517, Luther posted 95 theses on the door of the church in Wittenberg protesting against the sale of indulgences and other abuses of the church. The theses questioned the church’s teaching on indulgences and called for reform. Luther called the church to return to the teachings of the Bible. When the church refused his call for reformation, he broke away from the church. He translated the Bible into German and made God’s Word available in the language of the people.
9. John Calvin
John Calvin was an influential French Christian theologian during the Protestant Reformation. He was a great expositor of the Bible and the author of the Institutes of the Christian Religion published in 1536. In his teachings, Calvin emphasized the doctrine of salvation by grace rather than by works. His teachings form the basis for the theological system known as Calvinism.
10. John Wesley
John Wesley was an Anglican minister who became the founder of the Methodist Church. The early Methodist movement was known by its social work, charitable ministries, and missionary activities. John and his brother Charles were dedicated evangelists and hymn writers. The Methodist church grew because of Wesley’s commitment to preach the gospel to the masses.
There you have it; the names of ten people I believe had a great impact on the history of the church. However, there are many others who should also appear on this list. In addition to the ten people listed above, I could have mentioned the apostles Peter and John, but they were contemporary with Jesus.
I could also have mentioned John Chrysostom, an important Christian bishop in Constantinople who was famous for his oratory, Leo the Great, who is widely considered to be the first Pope and who stopped the invasion of Rome by Attila the Hun, Pope John Paul II, who is credited as one of the forces which brought about the fall of Communism, or even Billy Graham who has touched the lives of millions of people through his evangelistic crusades. I could have mentioned many others, but I was asked to mention only ten people.
NOTE: My blog has moved to a new address. If you enjoyed reading this post, you can subscribe to my blog by visiting my web page or subscribing to my blog here:
Dr. Claude Mariottini
Subscription
Claude F. Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)