The Jehoash Inscription

Photo: Jehoash Inscription



According to an article published in Bible History Daily, the Israeli government has appealed a judge’s decision in which he said that the government had not proved that the Jehoash inscription was a forgery.

The Jehoash inscription was part of a legal case in which the Israeli government accused Oded Golan of trafficking in forged antiquity. Below is an excerpt from the article:

The Israel government has appealed Jerusalem Judge Aharon Farkash's decision in the case of the "Jehoash" inscription, an inscription which, if authentic, would be the only surviving royal Israelite inscription. In the 5-year trial, the so-called "forgery case of the century," the government alleged that the 15-line "Jehoash" inscription was a forgery; the judge ruled that the government had not proved its case and declined to convict the defendant, Oded Golan.

The archeologists working for the  Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) failed to prove that the Jehoash inscription was a forgery. Now the IAA is appealing the decision of the judge to the judges of the Israel’s Supreme Court. If archeologists failed to prove the authenticity of the object, how will the judges decide on the authenticity of the Jehoash inscription?

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

“The Lord said to my lord”

In a previous post I discussed the meaning of the words “adoni” and “Adonai” (see below). The word “adoni” means “lord” and refers to an individual who is superior to another. The word “Adonai” refers to God as the divine Lord.

In the previous post I also discussed how the NRSV, the KJV, and the ESV translate the word “adoni” in Psalm 10:1. Both the KJV and the ESV translate the word “adoni” as “Lord” because the translators believe that the word refers to Jesus. The NRSV translates the word “adoni” as “lord” because the translator believes that the word refers to the king.

In the present post I will discuss Psalm 110 and show that the NRSV is correct and that the KJV and the ESV interject a theological meaning into the text that was not the intent of the original writer.

In the previous post, I wrote that a literal translation of verse 1 should read: “A saying of Yahweh to my lord: sit at my right hand.” This translation is important because the expression “a saying of Yahweh” (neum yhwh) is used by the prophets to introduce an oracle that carries divine authority. Generally, the expression “says Yahweh” (neum yhwh) comes at the end of an oracle (see Isa. 14:22; 17:3). The expression “says Yahweh” can also come at the beginning of an oracle as in Numbers 24:4, 16. In Psalm 110:1, the prophetic introduction comes at the beginning of the psalm.

The speaker in the psalm is probably a priest who anoints the king or a prophet who speaks a divine word from the Lord to the king. Samuel anointed Saul as the first king of Israel. Samuel was both a priest and a prophet. The speaker in Psalm 110 said to the new king: “A saying of Yahweh to my lord.” The word translated “lord” is “adoni” and should be translated “my lord.” The word is not “Adonai” which, if it had been used, would be a reference to God.

The occasion of Psalm 110 is the enthronement of a new king, probably David himself. The introduction to the psalm, “A Psalm of David” can also be read as “A Psalm for David.”

The psalm begins with the prophet saying that Yahweh was calling the king to sit at the right hand of God: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool” (Psa. 110:1). To sit at the right hand signifies a position of honor. The queen mother sat at the right hand of the king: “So Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him about Adonijah. The king stood up to greet her, bowed to her, sat down on his throne, and had a throne placed for the king’s mother. So she sat down at his right hand” (1 Kgs. 2:19 HCSB). See also Psalm 45:9 where the queen stands by the right hand of the king.

By sitting at the right hand of God, the king rules as a representative of God and sits on Yahweh’s throne as his son and representative. God said of David’s descendant: “He shall be my a son” (2 Sam. 7:14). The Chronicler says that Solomon’s throne was God’s throne: “Solomon sat on the LORD’s throne as king in place of his father David” (1 Chron. 29:23).

The place where the enthronement of the new king takes place is in Zion, the city of David: “The LORD sends out from Zion your mighty scepter” (Psa. 110:2). The scepter was the insignia of the king’s authority and power.

The psalm reflects an ancient tradition in Israel when the king was enthroned upon his throne in Israel. The new Israelite king was enthroned as King of Jerusalem and as a priest “according to the order of Melchizedek.” This means that the enthronement of the new king follows the tradition established by Melchizedek, the Jebusite king who was also a priest of the Jebusite population in Jerusalem. Thus, upon his enthronement, the “new king becomes an heir of the kingship of the old Jebusite population of Jerusalem” (Kraus, 2:347).

The priesthood of the king is affirmed by a divine oath: “The LORD has taken an oath and will not change his mind: ‘You are a priest forever, in the way Melchizedek was a priest’”
(Psa. 110:4 GWN). By taking an oath, God was declaring that the priesthood of David and his descendants is irrevocable and eternal.

Melchizedek was a priest of El Elyon, the Most High God. After David conquered the city of Jerusalem the priestly function was given to the Israelite king, who was also king of Jerusalem. There are several texts in the Hebrew Bible that show that the king of Jerusalem exercised priestly functions.

2 Samuel 6:14 says: “David danced before the LORD with all his might; David was girded with a linen ephod.” In this text David is wearing an ephod, which was a priestly vestment (Lev. 8:6-7). David “blessed the people in the name of the LORD of hosts” (2 Sam. 6:18). Blessing the people was a priestly function (Num. 6:23). During the transfer of the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem, David made sacrifices to the Lord (2 Sam. 6:13, 18). In addition, 2 Samuel 8:18 says that “David’s sons were priests” (see below).

The writer of Psalm 110 provides several clues that indicate that the background of the psalm is the enthronement of a new king:

1. The psalm begins with a prophetic oracle: “A saying of Yahweh to my lord.”

2. The psalm includes the enthronement of a new king: “sit at my right hand.”

3. The king accepts the scepter, the insignia of his office.

4. The people commit themselves to his kingship: “Your people will offer themselves freely on the day of your power” (Psa. 110:3 ESV).

5. The king is installed as priest according to the order of Melchizedek (v. 4).

6. God promises to give victory to the king against his enemies (vv. 5-7).

Contrary to some scholars’ opinions, Psalm 110 does not provide a complete description of the enthronement ritual that took place when the new king ascended his throne. Rather, the psalm is one of the many enthronement psalms found in the Hebrew Bible that were recited or sang to the king on the day of his coronation.

If Psalm 110 is referring to the king of Israel on the day of his enthronement (possibly David), how can the psalm be interpreted Messianicly? On the Messianic interpretation of Psalm 110, Kraus wrote: “The event of the word of God that pervades OT history and leads to the fulfillment in the NT is determined also in Psalm 110” (p. 353).

He also wrote: “This word of God elevates the individual statements that are conditioned by history of religions and the history of traditions to a message that vastly transcends the kings’ enthronement in Jerusalem at any given time, his office and his activity. This message, no matter how it applies in full force to the OT ruler, is open–all the way to the final fulfillment” (p. 353).

As one who inherited the kingly tradition established by David, Jesus understood the prophetic word in Psalm 100:1 to be a reference to himself, the “final fulfillment” of the prophetic declaration in verse 1. Jesus’ controversy with the Pharisees (Matt. 22:41-45; Mark 12:35-37, Luke 20:41-44) provides the writers of the New Testament with the authority to declare that Jesus was the final fulfillment of a declaration that began with David himself.

The expression “Sitting at the right hand of God” appears 9 times in the New Testament: Matt. 26:64; Acts 2:34; 7:55; Rom. 8:34; Eph. 1:20; Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 1 Pet. 3:22.

The expression “a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” appear in Heb. 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:10, 11, 17 ((see below).

The expression “Defeating the enemies” appears in Acts 2:35; 1 Cor. 15:25; Heb. 1:13; 10:13.

Thus, Psalm 110 says that the King who ruled from Jerusalem was both king and priest, but it is Jesus Christ who is the ultimate bearer of the office of King and Priest in the Kingdom of God.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Bibliography:

Hans-Joachim Kraus. Psalms 60-150: A Continental Commentary. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989.

Other Posts on this topic:

Adonai

Jesus: A High Priest After the Order of Melchizedek

Rereading 2 Samuel 8:18: “David’s Sons Were Priests”

Domestic Abuse in Christian Homes

Terry Loving at Domestic Abuse in Christian Homes has a list of resources for women who are abused by their husbands. Terry speaks out of her own experience and the resources she lists were written by women who also write from personal experience. Domestic abuse is a crime that deserves punishment.

The tragic thing about domestic violence is that it happens more often than people realize. The greatest tragedy about domestic violence is when the abuse is done by men who are in the pulpit. Visit Terry’s blog and recommend her blog to women who are being abused by their husbands or significant other.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Adonai

Recently, a reader left a request, asking me to write my views on the difference between “Adonai,” “Lord” and “adoni,” “my lord”. He also asked me to explain how “adoni” is used in Psalm 110:1 and whether Psalm 110:1 is a prophecy of Jesus Christ.

Before proceeding with the study of the words “Adonai” and “adoni,” it is necessary to review the translation problems in Psalm 110:1. There are three different ways by which English Bibles have translated Psalm 110:1.

New Revised Standard Version (NRSV): “The LORD says to my lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.’”

King James Version (KJV): “The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.”

English Standard Version (ESV): “The LORD says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.’”

The first issue to notice in these translations is the tense of the verb: the NRSV and the ESV use the present tense: “The LORD says.” The KJV uses the past tense: “The LORD said.”

None of these translations reflect the Hebrew text, since the text contains a nominal sentence, a sentence in which there is no verb. A literal translation of verse 1 should read: “A saying of Yahweh to my lord: ‘sit at my right hand.’” I will explain the significance of this expression as I study Psalm 110.
The second issue is how to translate the Hebrew word “adoni.” Both the KJV and the ESV use a capital L as in “Lord” to translate the word while the NRSV uses a small “l” as in “lord” to translate the word “adoni.” How the word “adoni” is translated makes a huge difference in the proper interpretation of the verse and of the psalm.

The use of Lord with capital L reflects a theological view that the person being addressed by the psalmist is Jesus Christ. Allen P. Ross, in his commentary on Psalms wrote: “In Psalm 110, David received an oracle about the exaltation of his Lord” (p. 873). According to Ross, the word “adoni” is a reference to Jesus Christ, who was David’s Lord.

Before proceeding with a study of Psalm 110:1, it necessary to discuss the meaning of the word “Adonai” and “adoni.” Unfortunately, I will have to use Hebrew in order to explain the difference between the two words.

In order to understand the meaning of the words “Adonai” and “adoni,” it becomes important to consider how these two words and a third word are used in the Hebrew Bible. These three words are: אָדוֹן (’ādôn), אָדֹנַי (’adōnai) and אָדֹנָי (’adōnāi).

The first word, אָדוֹן (’ ādôn), refers to an earthly lord or to people in authority over other persons. When the word received a personal pronoun, it becomes “adoni” and it is translated “my lord.” Thus, the word is used of a man who is over his servants or his house. The word is used of kings, rulers, and governors, people who are superior to other people. The word is also used of a husband as the lord over his wife. In this secular sense, the word “adon” is used more than 300 times in the Hebrew Bible. The word “adon” is also used 30 times to refer to God as the divine Lord. Below are two examples of the use of the word “adon.”

In Genesis 45:8 Joseph said that God made him “adon” over Pharaoh’s house: “So it was not you who sent me here, but God; he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt.”

In Exodus 34:23 the word “adon” is used to refer to God as the divine Lord: “Three times a year all your males are to appear before the Lord GOD, the God of Israel” (Exod. 34:23 HCSB).

The second word, אָדֹנַי (’adōnai) is the plural of the word “adon” and is used to refer to more than one “adon,” more than one lord. The word is used with this sense in Genesis 19:2. Lot said to his visitors: “Please, my lords, turn aside to your servant’s house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you can rise early and go on your way. They said, ‘No; we will spend the night in the square’” (Gen. 19:2).

The third word, אָדֹנָי (’adōnāi), is used 449 times in the Hebrew Bible. The word is used 315 times to refer to Yahweh in two different constructions: ’adōnāi yhwh 310 times and yhwh ’adōnāi 5 times.
According to Eissfeldt, the word “adon” appears in several languages and cultures in the Ancient Near East, but the word “adonai” only appears in the Old Testament. The natural form of the word should be ’adōnai, but the Old Testament form of the word, ’adōnāi, which is unique to the Hebrew Bible, has generated much discussion and scholars are not agreed on the origin of this form of the word.

There are three possible ways of interpreting the āi ending in the word ’adōnāi. Gesenius believes that the word used a plural form for the sake of intensity and should by translated “My Lord.”
Some scholars have proposed the view that the āi ending is used as an amplification of the plural word for ’ ādôn and should be translated “Lord of all.”

A third explanation, which probably reflects the uniqueness of the word in the Hebrew Bible, is that the Masoretes, in order to differentiate human lords from the divine Lord introduced the lengthening of the ā in order to indicate that the word was referring to God. Thus, in order to avoid the connection between human lords, “adonai” with the Lord God of Israel, “Adonai,” the Masoretes created a different way of writing the name of God in order to distinguish the human from the divine.

In the post-exilic period, at a time when the Jewish people were reluctant to use the Tetragrammaton and pronounce the divine name, they began to use the name Adonai as a substitute for the divine name Yahweh.
When the Masoretes put vowels on the consonantal text of the Hebrew Bible, they used the vowels of ’adōnāi with the consonants of Yhwh to express the divine name. As a result, when the Old Testament was translated into English, the word Jehovah was used to translate the divine name Yahweh. Jehovah is not the name of God. Jehovah is a composite name. It contains the consonants for Yhwh and the vowels for ’adōnāi.

Thus, after studying the meaning of the words “adon” and “Adonai,” the proper foundation has been established for the study of Psalm 110:1, which will be the subject of the next post.

Note:

If you are unable to see the Hebrew letters in the essay, download the Biblical fonts and install them on your computer. Download the fonts here.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Bibliography:

Allen, Ross P. “Psalms.” The Bible Knowledge Commentary. Wheaton:
Victor Press, 1988.

Eissfeldt, Otto. “’ādhôn.” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1974.

Domestic Abuse in Christian Homes

Terry Loving at Domestic Abuse in Christian Homes has a list of resources for women who are abused by their husbands. Terry speaks out of her own experience and the resources she lists were written by women who also write from personal experience.

Domestic abuse is a crime that deserves punishment. The tragic thing about domestic violence is that it happens more often than people realize. The greatest tragedy about domestic violence is when the abuse is done by men who are in the pulpit.

Visit Terry’s blog and recommend her blog to women who are being abused by their husbands or significant other.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Politics in the Hebrew Bible

Should the church be involved in politics?  A recent survey found that most Americans believe that churches should not be involved in politics.

I agree with this assessment. The role of the church is not to be involved in political issues; its mission is to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ and bring the message of the gospel to make an impact in the lives of individuals.

This then, brings us to another question?  Should Christians be involved in politics? As believers in Jesus Christ, as American citizens, and as voters, Christians cannot avoid but be involved in politics.

Our country is not a Christian nation, even though the majority of Americans are Christians. America is a pluralistic nation, a nation where its citizens espouse different religious views. Some Americans do not have any religious affiliation and do not believe that religious people should be involved in politics.

What is happening in America today is that non-religious people are demanding that this nation should avoid any display of religious faith in government, even when, notwithstanding the open denial of many people, this nation was founded by people who were religious and believed that religion should have an important place in American society.

This brings me to politics in the Bible. Sam Fleischacker, a professor at the University of Illinois, Chicago has written an excellent review of Michael Walzer’s book, In God’s Shadow: Politics in the Hebrew Bible (Yale University Press, 2012). The review was published in Notre Dame Philosophical Review. I have not read the book yet, but Fleischacker’s review was so interesting that I am planning to buy the book and read it, even though I have no free time these days to read books not related to my sabbatical.

Below are two excerpts from Fleischacker’s review of Walzer’s book.

Walzer manages to puncture some favorite myths championed by other contemporary scholars, who want either to claim the Hebrew Bible as a source for their own ideals or use it as a whipping boy for what they dislike about Western culture. Examples of the former include the idea that ancient Israel had a formal constitution (dismissed on 52-3), that the prophets were proto-pacifists (see 104), and that the "elders" constitute a democratic element in ancient Israelite governance (192-3). An example of the latter is the idea that the Hebrew Bible, because of its monotheism, is uniquely intolerant and militant, and invented the notion of holy war. Walzer dismisses this claim by citing an ancient Moabite inscription describing a holy war of exactly the sort mandated in Deuteronomy (35); one might add that most ancient polytheistic nations fought aggressive wars, invoked the blessing of their deities on their wars, and treated those they conquered in bloody and oppressive ways.

. . . . .

Walzer finds one theme running through all the materials he considers: a thoroughly apolitical, even anti-political worldview. The one thing shared by priests, prophets, wisdom writers and practically every other contributor to the Hebrew Bible, according to Walzer, is an indifference to politics, even an opposition to it. The Deuteronomist sees kings as having no positive role other than leading the Israelites into battle (56-8); the prophets are "at war with politics" (67) and "never call upon ordinary Israelites to act politically" (82); the authors of the wisdom literature are concerned with everyday life rather than politics (167); and no biblical writer takes an interest in public deliberation (73) or attaches "value to politics as a way of life" (125). "Politics," writes Walzer, "secular, everyday politics, the management of our common affairs, is not recognized by the biblical writers as a centrally important or humanly fulfilling activity." (186)

One interesting aspect of Fleischacker’s review is his view of the Bible and ancient Israel. Fleischacker wrote: “ Taken alone, the Hebrew Bible is the product of a fairly unimportant ancient people, who ruled a small strip of land and did not distinguish themselves in city-building or technology, mathematics or medicine, art or philosophy.”

It is interesting to me that such a “fairly unimportant ancient people” wrote such an influential book, a book that has touched the lives of people for more than two thousand years. The reason is, as Fleischacker acknowledges, that the Bible became the foundation book of two major religions, Judaism and Christianity, and the followers of these two religions have made the kind of contribution to society that has changed and influenced life in the West and around the world.

Many people do not like to read book reviews, but Fleischacker’s review deserves to be read. One may not agree with some of Fleischacker’s conclusions, and even without reading the book, there is much to learn in his review about the prophets’ view of politics and the role of law in Israelite society.

You can read the book review by visiting the Notre Dame Philosophical Review.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

“Leave Me Alone”

 7 The LORD told Moses, Quick! Go down the mountain! Your people whom you brought from the land of Egypt have corrupted themselves.
 8 How quickly they have turned away from the way I commanded them to live! They have melted down gold and made a calf, and they have bowed down and sacrificed to it. They are saying, ‘These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.’
 9 Then the LORD said, ‘I have seen how stubborn and rebellious these people are.
 10 Now leave me alone so my fierce anger can blaze against them, and I will destroy them. Then I will make you, Moses, into a great nation.’
 11 But Moses tried to pacify the LORD his God. ‘O LORD!’ he said. ‘Why are you so angry with your own people whom you brought from the land of Egypt with such great power and such a strong hand?
 12 Why let the Egyptians say, ‘Their God rescued them with the evil intention of slaughtering them in the mountains and wiping them from the face of the earth? Turn away from your fierce anger. Change your mind about this terrible disaster you have threatened against your people!
 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. You bound yourself with an oath to them, saying, ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars of heaven. And I will give them all of this land that I have promised to your descendants, and they will possess it forever.’
 14 So the LORD changed his mind about the terrible disaster he had threatened to bring on his people. (Exod. 32:7-14 NLT)

God said to Moses: “Now leave Me alone” (Exod. 32:10).

Christians believe in God. The problem is that most Christians do not know the God in whom they believe. Often, Christians are asked to explain their faith in God: “Who is the God in whom you believe? When asked this question, they answer: “I believe in the God who revealed himself in Jesus Christ.” This is a good answer, but how about the God who revealed himself to Moses? And to Hosea? And to Jeremiah?

Most Christians know little about the God of Jeremiah or the God of Moses. Just read carefully the passage quoted above again. What does the text say about God?

It is easy to believe in the God who can move mountains, but who believes in a God who struggles with deciding what to do with a rebellious people? Christians can believe in a God who knows the number of hairs on their head, but are reluctant to believe in a God who does not know how the people of Israel will react to a message sent to them.

Christians can believe in a God who is the same yesterday, today, and forever, but they are reluctant to believe in a God who changes his mind, a God who repents, a God who agonizes like a woman giving birth, a God who sheds tears because of the rebellions of his people, a God who needs to be pacified. All these characteristics of God are in the Bible.

Why such a disconnect? Why is it so much easier to believe in the God who reveals himself in Christ? The answer is simple: because most Christians do not know the God of the Old Testament.

In addition, most Christians do not understand that many of their views about God are based on the speculative idea of the “God of the philosophers” and not on the “God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” Or as Pascal emphasized, our views of God are based on natural theology, not on biblical revelation. Our views of God are based on the teachings of Augustine, of Aquinas, of Luther, or of John Calvin.

Helmut Thielicke, in his book A Little Exercise for Young Theologians (p. 51) wrote:

“Every theological idea which makes an impression upon you must be regarded as a challenge to your faith. Do not assume as a matter of course that you believe whatever impresses you theologically and enlightens you intellectually. Otherwise suddenly you are believing no longer in Jesus Christ, but in Luther, or in one of your other theological teachers” such as Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, or John Calvin.

Time and space will not allow me to introduce you to the God who revealed himself to Hosea or to Jeremiah. I will briefly introduce you to the God who revealed himself to Moses.

The passage you read, Exodus 32:7-14, deals with the events related to the making of the golden calf after the people made a covenant with God. God told Moses: “Leave me alone, so that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them” (Exod. 32:10). God was very angry. He told Moses to leave him alone so that he could consume the people.

Listen to the irony in God’s voice: No longer is Israel the people of God, but now they are the people of Moses. God told Moses: “Go down at once! Your people, whom you brought up out of the land of Egypt, have acted perversely” (Exod. 32:7).

God is speaking as if Moses had the power to send the plagues or open the sea to save Israel. Moses had to correct God. Moses said: “It was you who brought them out of the land of Egypt with such great power and such a strong hand” (Exod. 32:11).

Yochanan Muffs, a Jewish scholar who taught at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America paraphrased Moses’ words to God:

“Don’t try to blame me for their sinful behavior. If they have sinned, they are Your people, not mine. If You want to get rid of them, do so, but don’t try to erase Your connection to them.”

But God was determined to get rid of the people: “Leave me alone.” He said to Moses. But, acting as a defense attorney for Israel, Moses tries to pacify God (Exod. 32:11). In order to pacify God, Moses used, what Muffs called “an audacious rhetorical device coupled with moral blackmail.” Moses appealed to God’s honor. And it worked.

Moses said to God: “Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people” (Exod. 32:12 KJV). In response to Moses’ desperate plea, “the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people” (Exod. 32:14 KJV).

A God who repents? A God who changes his mind? It is here that most Christians struggle.

When it comes to the God of the Bible, Muffs said that we have two choices: either an indifferent God who is devoid of personality and feelings or a personal God who is worried about what the nations of the world will think about his reputation. Muffs concluded: “The biblical God is anthropomorphic. He who strips God of His personal quality distorts the true meaning of Scripture.”

It is in this dialogue between God and Moses that we understand the work of God’s prophets. When dealing with Israel’s sins, the divine love turns into disappointment, and the disappointment turns into anger that overflows all boundaries and threatens the very existence of Israel.

If there is no restraint to God’s anger, then not only Israel, but the whole world is placed in great danger. This is what we saw at the time of the flood, when the whole world was threatened with destruction.

This is what happened to Israel. God told Jeremiah not to pray for Israel, because God had already decided to punish Israel. God told Jeremiah: “As for you, do not pray for this people, or lift up a cry or prayer on their behalf, for I will not listen when they call to me in the time of their trouble” (Jer. 11:14 NRSV).

But Jeremiah disobeyed God and continued praying for the people. So, God had to forbid Jeremiah to pray for the people, not once, not twice, but three times. It is for this reason that God allows his prophets to intercede for the people in prayer, reminding God of his mercy, the very element that calms his anger. Thus, when God is angry, God needs the prayers of his prophets so that God can calm his anger and manifest his love.

This language may be new and offensive to some people in church and in seminary, but it reflects the very teachings of God’s word.

God was about to destroy Israel and begin again with Moses, in the same way he began a new humanity with Noah and his family. But before God judges Israel, he takes counsel with Moses.
When God said, “Leave me alone,” God was in reality asking Moses to intercede for Israel.

God is searching for the appropriate response to deal with the apostasy of Israel, but he does so in consultation with Moses. God does not regard the unfaithfulness of Israel lightly. This is the reason he asks Moses to leave him alone so that he can let his anger take its course against Israel.

The key phrase for interpreting this incident is “leave me alone.”

God has made a decision to execute his wrath, but God’s decision is not final. Before God brings judgment upon Israel, God saw the need to consult with Moses. As the prophet Amos said: “The Lord GOD does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants, the prophets” (Amos 3:7 NAB).

And this is precisely what God did before he brought judgment against Sodom and Gomorrah: ‘Shall I hide my plan from Abraham?’ the LORD asked” (Gen. 18:17 NLT).

In Psalm 106:23, the Psalmist said: “God would have destroyed Israel had not Moses His chosen one confronted Him in the breach to avert His destructive wrath” (Psa. 106:23 TNK). Notice again the words of the Psalmist. He said: “Moses confronted God in the breach to avert His destructive wrath.”

So, the text in Exodus 32:7-14 teaches us that at times God needs to be confronted, that he needs to be pacified so that he may change his mind concerning an action of judgment he is about to execute. This is the God of the Bible, but this God is unknown to many Christians.

So, as we read Exodus 32:7-14, we learn two things about the God of the Bible:

1. God takes the intercession of his people seriously. Prayer has power with God, and as we have seen from Exodus 32:14, prayer can change the mind of God.

2. Divine love triumphs over divine anger. The people of Israel were determined to abandon God, but God cannot give them up, he cannot destroy them, despite their rebellion. Because of divine love, God’s heart is torn within himself, and God’s compassion for Israel does not allow him to consume his people.

With Moses we learn that there is power in prayer. As James wrote: “The earnest prayer of a righteous person has great power and produces wonderful results” (Jam. 5:16 NLT).

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

A Man Fighting a Lion

Photo: Man Fighting a Lion

Credit: Tel Beth Shemesh Excavation


In a previous post on the Philistines, I mentioned that the Philistines were a menace to the people of Israel during the period of the judges. The Bible says that Shamgar and Samson fought against the Philistines, but were unable to overpower them (read my post on The Philistines).

According to the book of Judges, Samson had much interaction with the Philistines. He married a Philistine woman and was betrayed by Delilah, who probably was also a Philistine woman.

Recently, archaeologists have found a seal that may shed light on the story of Samson. The seal, found a Beth Shemesh, depicts a man fighting a lion. According to Shlomo Bunimovitz, an archaeologist at Tel Aviv University, the seal may be an early reference to the story of Samson in the book of Judges. The seal is dated to the 12th century B.C., approximately the time that Samson lived.

According to the book of Judges, Samson killed a lion with his bare hands:

“Then Samson went down with his father and mother to Timnah. When he came to the vineyards of Timnah, suddenly a young lion roared at him. The spirit of the LORD rushed on him, and he tore the lion apart barehanded as one might tear apart a kid” (Judg 14:5-6).

It is impossible to know whether the seal of the man killing a lion is direct evidence of what Samson did. But since the seal is dated to the time of the Judges, it is possible that the story of Samson or a similar story was already known in the 12th century B.C. in Beth Shemesh.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

The Philistines

A few years after the people of Israel left Egypt and arrived in Canaan, the land God had promised to Abraham to give to his descendants, the world in which Israel and the Canaanites lived was invaded by a new group of people who settled along the coastal plain between Jaffa and the desert area some fifty miles south of Gaza.

The area of land between the alluvial coastal plain and the limestone plateau known as the Shephelah, became their eastern border. This new group of people became known as the Philistines. They became the ruling class of five cities, known as the Philistine pentapolis. These five cities were Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Ekron, and Gath.

In this and the next post, I will provide a brief history of the Philistines, including some information about their culture and their interaction with Israel.

It is generally believed that the Philistines came from the eastern Mediterranean area, but their original homeland and migration route are uncertain. What is known is that the Philistines were part of a group of people known as the Sea Peoples. According to Amos 9:7, the Philistines came from Caphtor, that is, from Crete. It is also possible that some of the Philistines came from Asia Minor. If this is true, then their civilization had a large Carian (from southwest Anatolia) element in their composition. Scholars believe that the mention of the Cherethites in 2 Samuel 8:18 is a reference to the Philistines.

The patriarchal narratives in Genesis chapters 20 and 26 describe how both Abraham and Isaac encountered a certain Abimelech, who is identified as a Philistine and the king of Gerar.

Scholars have been inclined to regard these stories as anachronisms because they mention the Philistines at a time when the migration of the Sea Peoples had not yet occurred.  However, the mention of the Philistines may not be anachronistic. If the mention of the Philistines in Genesis is anachronistic, then one would expect that one of the five cities of the later Philistines would have been mentioned, instead of Gerar.

Scholars have also mentioned that the Philistines of the patriarchal narratives were peaceful herdsmen, very unlike the warlike Philistines of the time of Saul and David. It is possible that the Philistines who lived in Gerar and Beersheba were part of an earlier migration of the people who eventually became known as the Philistines.

According to Egyptian records, the Philistines was one group of people who came to Palestine among the Sea Peoples. The Philistines invaded Egypt in the eighth year of the reign of Rameses III (ca. 1183-1152 B.C.). Rameses and the Philistines met in a naval battle that took place at the mouth of the Nile River. Among the Sea Peoples who invaded Egypt, Rameses III mentions the Pelasata (that is, the Philistines), the Danuna, the Shakarusha, and others.

In describing his struggle against the Sea Peoples, Rameses said that the Sea Peoples came from isles in the midst of the sea, and that they advanced against Egypt, relying upon their weapons of iron. On the walls of Rameses’ temple at Medinet Habu, the Philistines are depicted as armed with swords, round shields, and laminated corselets. The corselets were worn by only a few of the soldiers. Philistine soldiers’ headgear was topped with feathers.

According to Egyptian records, Rameses defeated the Philistines and took many prisoners. Although Rameses claimed victory against the Sea Peoples, Egypt was weakened by the attack. Unable to defeat the invaders completely, Rameses was forced to deal with the presence of the Philistines and the other foreign invaders.

Rameses allowed the Philistines to settle in the eastern Mediterranean coast. He made them his vassals and employed many of the conquered soldiers as mercenaries and placed them in the garrisons located on the borders of the empire—including the area that was to become known as Palestine. The Israelites occupied the highlands of Palestine, while the Philistines occupied much of its coastland.

The Philistine territory went from the northwestern Negev north to the city of Ekron and from the Mediterranean Sea to the western slopes of Judah. At the beginning of the Philistines’ settlement in Canaan, they were still under the watchful eye of Egypt, since Rameses made them his vassals and employed some of them as mercenaries.

After the death of Rameses, Egyptian’s power in Canaan waned and Rameses’ successors were unable to regain control of Canaan. Exploiting the political weakness of Egypt, the Philistines eventually gained their independence from Egypt.

From the end of the twelfth through the eleventh centuries, the Philistines expanded their presence in Canaan and consolidated their power by assimilating the culture and the language of the indigenous people of Canaan.

The book of 1 Samuel indicates that the Philistines increased the number of settlements under their control. They controlled and influenced the northern Negev and were present in much of the territory that belonged to the tribes of Simeon, Judah, and Dan.

In fact, after the death of Samson, the Danites under pressure from the Philistines, were forced to migrate from the territory allotted to them by Joshua. One of the cities allotted to the tribe of Dan was Ekron (Josh 19:43), a city that eventually became one of the five cities in the Philistine pentapolis (Josh 13:3). The Danites moved from the Shephelah to the northernmost part of Canaan where they conquered Laish, a Canaanite city and renamed it Dan (Judg 18:27-29).

To be continued.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

On Sabbatical

It has been a long time since my last post. Things have been hectic these past several weeks. The academic year has come to an end and as of July 1st I have been on sabbatical, away from my regular office activities, deep in reading and research for my next project.

For a professor, a sabbatical means reading and writing. I am doing research for a book that I hope to have the first draft finished by the end of December. I have been reading and doing research six days a week. It is for this reason that I have been unable to post to the blog regularly.

But this is about to change. Beginning today I have decided that I will begin posting again to the blog in a timely fashion. This means that I will have to dedicate time to read, research, write, and blog.

Since being away from the blog, I have missed the dialogue with readers of my blog. I enjoy reading your comments, your emails, and the give and take that takes place as a result of my posts.

The way I seek to write my posts requires time and research. Over the years I have used my blog to supplement my teaching in the classroom. Many of the posts I write come out of questions students raise in class and out of my reaction to books and articles I read. So, don’t be surprised if some of my coming posts are related to the research I am doing for my book.

I hope to continue writing posts that can teach you something new about the Old Testament. I have several ideas for future posts that I am sure will be of interest to you who read my blog.

Thank you for your patience with my absence. I am back and will work hard to continue writing posts that will provoke dialogue and engender further study.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Severed Human Hands

Credit: Photo by Axel Krause


Archaeologists have made an important discovery in an ancient Hyksos site in Egypt. Digging at the ancient palace of King Khayan, a Hyksos ruler who controlled Egypt 3600 ago, archaeologists have discovered sixteen human hands buried in four pits.

According to a report published in LiveScience, the right hands were buried in four pits inside Khayan’s palace. The report says the severed hands provide evidence of an ancient custom of Egyptian soldiers cutting off their enemies’ right hands and exchanging them for gold.

 No one knows the origin of the custom of cutting off the enemies’ right hand. According to the article in LiveScience,

Cutting off the right hand of an enemy was a practice undertaken by both the Hyksos and the Egyptians.
   
One account is written on the tomb wall of Ahmose, son of Ibana, an Egyptian fighting in a campaign against the Hyksos. Written about 80 years later than the time the 16 hands were buried, the inscription reads in part:
   
"Then I fought hand to hand. I brought away a hand. It was reported to the royal herald." For his efforts, the writer was given "the gold of valor."
   
Later, in a campaign against the Nubians, to the south, Ahmose took three hands and was given "gold in double measure," the inscription suggests.

For more information on this discovery, visit LiveScience online.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary