"Archaeology is the scattered collection of what has been found, while the Bible is the scattered record of what would have fit the biblical writers' theological purposes."
David Merling
Andrews University
Thus, it is always important to remember the material found at a site or the telling in a text is not everything that happened. There is often the unintentional neglect in the text or lost remains. What is found or what is said should be analyzed without forgetting there is some aspect that we don't know. In the text we can trust that we have what God has super-intended. With material remains we can trust in providence for what we have or may find and maintain humility and dialogue as more evidence comes to light.
Merling, David. "The Relationship between Archaeology and the Bible: Expectations and Reality." Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions. Edited by James K. Hoffmeier and Alan Millard. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans) 2004, 42.
10/29/2008
10/27/2008
The Portrayal of Women in the Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs and some NT contrasts
The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs depicts its author’s words as if they were the final death bed statements of these great patriarchs of Israel. In doing so the reader is given a glimpse of the worldview of the Second Temple period Jew. A significant portion of the text concerns the sexual promiscuity of the patriarchs. This is due in part to the quantity of the Genesis material that involves these misdeeds. In the description of the sexual promiscuity of the patriarchs a portrayal of women is offered. By considering this content from The Twelve Patriarchs, one can discover significant contrasts with the New Testament’s portrayal of women.
First, the testaments portray women’s tactics to cause sexual promiscuity. This portrayal goes beyond mere individual sinful women, but is generalized to speak of all women at points. The author mentions three specific tactics of women. First, adornments chosen by women are said to be a tactic to lure men to sexual promiscuity. In Joseph’s testament 9:5 the Egyptian women is described as choosing clothing (or absence of some clothing) for the purpose of enticing Joseph.
Judah 12:3 mentions Tamar’s beauty and manner of tricking herself out as the causes of Judah’s sexual sin. It is interesting in these two examples that the women are active in the pursuit of sin. The explanation of Reuben’ sin with Bilhah is different. He saw the absence of adornment which caused him to sin (Reuben 3:11). The responsibility is clearly on his shoulders. This tactic of adornment depicts women as choosing to wear items so as to drive men to sin. This understanding is the driving force of the charge of Reuben 5:5 for men to ensure their wives are daughters are not adorned in a way to deceive men.
The second tactic to cause sexual promiscuity is the more general concept of deception. This idea is communicated in the narrative telling and by direct teaching. The Joseph testament speaks of the Egyptian woman pretending to have motherly care to entice Joseph (3:8), giving public praise to support private seduction (4:1), and feigned conversion to motivate sin (4:4ff). These deceitful tactics of a crafty woman are universalized to general statements of the deceitfulness of women. Women are said to work to deceive the minds of men (Reuben 5:5). If appearance alone cannot conqueror a man then “a stratagem” is devised (Reuben 5:2).This deceitfulness is a partial rationale for the events of Genesis 6 according to Reuben 5:6. The women of Genesis six “charmed” the Watchers. This is the reason for Reuben’s charge of 6:1 to “protect your senses from women.”
The third tactic of women to cause sexual promiscuity is the use of wine. It is telling how culpability is placed on women for the use of wine not on the men, who are under its influence. In Judah’s testament wine is actively working against Judah (13:6-8). Judah was influenced by wine to allow his Canaanite wife to break his word to supply Shelom to Tamar to provide a son (11:3-5). It also may be that wine played a role in the first intercourse and subsequent marriage of Judah and the Canaanite woman (11:1-2; 14:7).In 13:5-8 it is Judah’s father-in-law that has his daughter use wine to seduce Judah. In 12:3 wine is at least an accomplice to the sexual mischief of Tamar. While it is not always clear that wine was the woman’s idea, it is clear from the testaments the author saw women as using it as a tool to accomplish their goals.
Secondly, the testaments portray women’s motives for causing sexual promiscuity. There are two underlying motives according to the author of the testaments for women’s sexual promiscuity. First, women cause promiscuity because they are more easily overcome by the spirit of promiscuity (Reuben 5:3).Reuben makes an appeal to authority that he has received this tidbit of insight from the angel of the Lord. Women apparently are less able to ward off temptation and thus are caught up in the tactics towards sin. The Egyptian woman’s mind according to Joseph 7:1 is evil and busied with devising ways to trap Joseph. Reuben describes women as not being able to handle “chance meetings” that stir up promiscuity (6:3-4).
The second motive is women are involved in sexual promiscuity because of their lack of authority. In the voice of Reuben the author says “women are evil” and try to exert authority over men through sexual promiscuity (Reuben 5:1). The author sees the disjunction of women to men’s authority as a cause for a power play with sexual enticement. The assumption is that gained power motivates women to unshackle pious commitments for a purpose or calling only in relation to men.
The New Testament stands in opposition to this portrayal of women by the Twelve Patriarchs in two vital ways. First, I Peter 3:1-6 views adornment not as tactic to lure men but as self-aggrandizement. It is not depicted in relation to men. Beauty is redefined by this New Testament teaching in verses three and four. It is internalized and has a new object for women in distinction from men. Womanly beauty is to find worth in God’s sight and a means of hoping in God. A higher purpose for pious commitment is given with no relation to men. The redefinition of beauty is argued with a greater patriarch than the sons of Jacob. Abraham’s wife Sarah is the exemplar of this beauty.
In I Peter 3:1-6 men are not charged to avoid the wiles of women in their seductive practices. Husbands are called to treat their wives with respect as a weaker partner and as a fellow-heir. The rest of the tenor of the New Testament calls men to flee youthful lust (II Tim. 2:22) and to marry if acting improperly towards a virgin (I Cor. 7:36). The warning is to the man of himself not of the woman’s schemes. In this way Benjamin’s charge of 8:2 is congruent with II Timothy 2:22.
The second vital contrast is authority usurpation is prohibited not because of the weakness of the woman but of the man. Eve sinned according to I Timothy 2:11-15 after being deceived. Adam sinned as a result of Eve’s influence. Thus, the prohibition of women’s authority over men has the susceptibility of men in mind unlike Reuben’s judgment of women’s easiness. Eve is not said to be plotting a power play of Adam, but Adam though not deceived succumbs at the power of Eve. The womanly suggestion begets sinful action by the man. Rather than taint the woman’s motives as Reuben does, Paul speaks warning to men finding themselves under the authority influence of women.
10/16/2008
Exodus 4:27-31: God Visits and Sees
In Exodus 4:1 Moses was concerned that his people would not believe that he had in fact met the Lord. God gives Moses signs as proof. Then in 4:10 Moses says his lack of eloquence is a reason he cannot speak to his people. God brings Aaron to speak for Moses (4:27).
Aaron meets with Moses and sees the signs. After that Moses and Aaron gather up the leaders of the people. Aaron did the talking and showed them the signs.
What was the response of the people? Exodus 4:31 says they believed. It goes further though.
The people bowed their heads and worshipped! At the signs and the words of Aaron the people believed, but something else prompted them to worship.
The people heard that the Lord had visited the people of Israel and He had seen their affliction. The “visit” of the Lord is difficult to get one’s hands around. All the modern ideas of a “visit” or “stopping by” are not intended. The Hebrew word translated as “visit” here has a broad semantic range. The idea communicated in this passage is the presence of the Lord is “beneficial” in contrast to times where the visit could be closely related to punishment (Harris et al. 1980, 1802-1803). Clearly the presence of God with beneficial results is intended. The next action ascribed to the Lord is His seeing of the people’s affliction.
Certainly, the affliction is described by the action of the Pharaoh, who knew not Joseph (1:8). These terrible events and mistreatment were observed by the Lord. In God’s visit and God’s seeing the people worship. Fretheim makes this point well, “In response to these words and deeds, the people believe, that is, they believe that what he has said is the truth. But the people not only believe, they worship….It is not the signs that prompt this activity but the specific promise inherent in God’s involvement. The next time the people worship, it will be upon deliverance from death on Passover night (12:27). The next time they believe, it will be on the far banks of the sea (14:31). This verse pushes ahead to the full realization of this word of God and ties Passover and sea crossing together”(Fretheim 1991, 82).
The importance of this verse cannot be overlooked for the unveiling of the theology of Exodus (and the exodus too). But what of current day believers? Does the visit of God and His seeing of our affliction bring us to worship?
I believe it ought to. Certainly in the face of physical mistreatment this verse can comfort that God sees and visits. It goes further than that for us who believe. Hebrews 2:14-18 speaks of Jesus Christ sharing our flesh and partaking of the same things we do. In short, He experienced the affliction of being part of a sin-cursed race of fallen, finite beings (though without sin Himself). Hebrews 2:17 says He was made like His brothers. In this suffering of temptation He experienced, He is able to help those who are tempted (Heb. 2:18). God the Son visited and not only saw but experienced our affliction. How can that not cause us also to worship?
Terrence E. Fretheim. 1991. Exodus. Interpretation. Louisville, KY: John Knox.
R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke. 1980. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody.
Aaron meets with Moses and sees the signs. After that Moses and Aaron gather up the leaders of the people. Aaron did the talking and showed them the signs.
What was the response of the people? Exodus 4:31 says they believed. It goes further though.
The people bowed their heads and worshipped! At the signs and the words of Aaron the people believed, but something else prompted them to worship.
The people heard that the Lord had visited the people of Israel and He had seen their affliction. The “visit” of the Lord is difficult to get one’s hands around. All the modern ideas of a “visit” or “stopping by” are not intended. The Hebrew word translated as “visit” here has a broad semantic range. The idea communicated in this passage is the presence of the Lord is “beneficial” in contrast to times where the visit could be closely related to punishment (Harris et al. 1980, 1802-1803). Clearly the presence of God with beneficial results is intended. The next action ascribed to the Lord is His seeing of the people’s affliction.
Certainly, the affliction is described by the action of the Pharaoh, who knew not Joseph (1:8). These terrible events and mistreatment were observed by the Lord. In God’s visit and God’s seeing the people worship. Fretheim makes this point well, “In response to these words and deeds, the people believe, that is, they believe that what he has said is the truth. But the people not only believe, they worship….It is not the signs that prompt this activity but the specific promise inherent in God’s involvement. The next time the people worship, it will be upon deliverance from death on Passover night (12:27). The next time they believe, it will be on the far banks of the sea (14:31). This verse pushes ahead to the full realization of this word of God and ties Passover and sea crossing together”(Fretheim 1991, 82).
The importance of this verse cannot be overlooked for the unveiling of the theology of Exodus (and the exodus too). But what of current day believers? Does the visit of God and His seeing of our affliction bring us to worship?
I believe it ought to. Certainly in the face of physical mistreatment this verse can comfort that God sees and visits. It goes further than that for us who believe. Hebrews 2:14-18 speaks of Jesus Christ sharing our flesh and partaking of the same things we do. In short, He experienced the affliction of being part of a sin-cursed race of fallen, finite beings (though without sin Himself). Hebrews 2:17 says He was made like His brothers. In this suffering of temptation He experienced, He is able to help those who are tempted (Heb. 2:18). God the Son visited and not only saw but experienced our affliction. How can that not cause us also to worship?
Terrence E. Fretheim. 1991. Exodus. Interpretation. Louisville, KY: John Knox.
R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke. 1980. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody.
10/15/2008
Retribution: A Comparison of 2 Maccabees and the NT
The OT apocryphal book of 2 Maccabees is rich in its descriptions of torture and oppression of the Jewish people and the resultant gruesome punishment of its oppressors. The Lord is involved in the retribution of both the Jewish people and their enemies. These concepts are in ways removed from a modern western reader’s mentality. To consider the conceptual framework of a Second Temple Jew on retribution five tenets will be discussed. From these tenets and subsequent comparison with three New Testament passages, the reader will grasp the Second Temple Jew’s mindset regarding retribution and its presence in the writing of New Testament authors as well.
The first tenet is retribution is an act the Jews can call to God to carry out. The story early on depicts Nehemiah praying for God to afflict the Gentiles for their two sins of oppression and insolence (1:28). This mindset speaks to a division between the Jews and the rest of the world and particularly those who are against them. The seventh son tells Antiochus that he and his brothers appeal to God for affliction to come upon him (7:37). This appeal seems to indicate an intended result of the afflictions is a reverential, monotheistic confession from Antiochus. The fruition of these words can be considered as the narrative transpires in chapter nine. Antiochus is said to acknowledge the Lord’s doing in his bowel pains. He sought to reduce its severity by vowing to the Lord, but it does not produce this result. Thus, the sons’ calls for God’s retribution are answered in the narrative.
Secondly, the negative outcomes on the Jew’s enemies are attributed directly to God and described as His punishment. The way that this is shown in the text is through narration and not direct words from God. This does not negate the true relationship of God to these events in the mind of the author. It does indicate that the author is involved in interpretation to congeal the outcomes to retributive causes. The actions of Antiochus against Andronicus in 4:38 are described as God’s “repayment”. The conceptual framework of the author assumes secondary means as a legitimate action to be ascribed to God. This is applied equally to the internal, medical outcomes experienced by Antiochus. While there are not external signs to validate the attribution to God, the narratorial comments bring the reader to these conclusions. Thus in the mind of the author, God punishes enemies through the negative outcomes that befall them.
Thirdly, God’s retribution of the Jew’s enemies is described as responsive, proportionate and predictable. The punishment is always in relation to the evil deeds committed and the Lord responds. The punishment is never misdirected or arbitrary in its exaction but proportional to the oppression and arrogance of the enemy. The actions of Andronicus, Nicanor and Antiochus are met with God’s “deserved or “just” punishment (4:38; 7:36). The proportionality even extends to the level of irony in the extremes of accordance to lex talionis. This extreme irony produces in the reader an almost humorous response at the reversals of Antiochus (9:4-8). The predictable nature of retribution is shown in confidence of the narrator’s descriptions of the Lord’s emotions towards enemies (5:17-20 and 6:13-14). Characters trust in predictable retribution to follow. In 7:34-35 the seventh son assures Antiochus of God’s punishment and its inescapable consequences. Judas is confident that God will attack those opposing the Jews in 8:18.
Fourthly, the meting out of negative outcomes to the Jewish people themselves is described differently. These negative outcomes are still attributed to God but termed “discipline” (6:12, 14; 7:32; 10:4). The outcomes are similar to those befalling the enemies such as pain and brutal murder (6:10-11; 7:1-23). Similar to the punishment of the enemies, the Jews experience discipline in response to their sinful ways (4:16-17; 6:14-17). The key distinction between punishment and discipline is the narrator’s interpretation of God’s purposes.
Finally, God’s timing of punishment and discipline is intentional and meaningful. The distinction between punishment and discipline is clearly shown to be in the author’s mind by the comments of 6:12-17. The narrator clarifies that the swift discipline is actually merciful kindness. The Lord is patient in His punishment of the other nations waiting to give them the full judgment for all of their sins. The Lord disciplines the Jews as a sign of their relationship not forsakenness. This interpretation by the author is a means of dealing with the occupation of Israel and seeming distance of the Lord from the time of the exile.
The New Testament shares the retribution concepts of 2 Maccabees with several comparable statements. Due to space limitations, the comparison will engage the works of three New Testament authors. First, Paul’s statements in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 shares 2 Maccabees’ view of the Lord’s measuring of sins prior to punishment. Paul’s words of God’s wrath falling upon the Jewish people are also similar in sense to the statements of 8:11 and the overtaking of God’s judgment upon Nicanor. Paul has now interpreted God’s retributive punishment as falling upon the Jewish nation.
Secondly, 2 Peter displays similar concepts to 2 Maccabees on the predictable nature of retribution and timing of its occurrences. 2 Peter 2:9-10 functions as part of a larger discussion about false teachers. It describes the unrighteous as “under punishment” waiting for the predictable outpouring from God. 2 Peter 3:7-10 concerns timing as God is said to not be slow in keeping promises but waiting in judgment to prevent perishing. Here the patience of God is merciful over against 2 Maccabees’ swift mercy.
Finally, the unnamed author of Hebrews shares the viewpoint of discipline in Hebrews 12:3-11. Discipline is acknowledged as painful (Heb. 12:11) but proof of a relationship with the Lord. The purpose of the discipline is clearly for purifying of one’s life in holiness (compare Heb 12:10 and 2 Macc 7:32).
The tenets of retribution from 2 Maccabees can be related to New Testament teachings as well. These mental connections regarding retribution require closer attention to what is congruent and what is purposefully distinct in the New Testament. The differences that might be detected do not undermine the corollaries of retribution presented between 2 Maccabees and these New Testament passages.
The first tenet is retribution is an act the Jews can call to God to carry out. The story early on depicts Nehemiah praying for God to afflict the Gentiles for their two sins of oppression and insolence (1:28). This mindset speaks to a division between the Jews and the rest of the world and particularly those who are against them. The seventh son tells Antiochus that he and his brothers appeal to God for affliction to come upon him (7:37). This appeal seems to indicate an intended result of the afflictions is a reverential, monotheistic confession from Antiochus. The fruition of these words can be considered as the narrative transpires in chapter nine. Antiochus is said to acknowledge the Lord’s doing in his bowel pains. He sought to reduce its severity by vowing to the Lord, but it does not produce this result. Thus, the sons’ calls for God’s retribution are answered in the narrative.
Secondly, the negative outcomes on the Jew’s enemies are attributed directly to God and described as His punishment. The way that this is shown in the text is through narration and not direct words from God. This does not negate the true relationship of God to these events in the mind of the author. It does indicate that the author is involved in interpretation to congeal the outcomes to retributive causes. The actions of Antiochus against Andronicus in 4:38 are described as God’s “repayment”. The conceptual framework of the author assumes secondary means as a legitimate action to be ascribed to God. This is applied equally to the internal, medical outcomes experienced by Antiochus. While there are not external signs to validate the attribution to God, the narratorial comments bring the reader to these conclusions. Thus in the mind of the author, God punishes enemies through the negative outcomes that befall them.
Thirdly, God’s retribution of the Jew’s enemies is described as responsive, proportionate and predictable. The punishment is always in relation to the evil deeds committed and the Lord responds. The punishment is never misdirected or arbitrary in its exaction but proportional to the oppression and arrogance of the enemy. The actions of Andronicus, Nicanor and Antiochus are met with God’s “deserved or “just” punishment (4:38; 7:36). The proportionality even extends to the level of irony in the extremes of accordance to lex talionis. This extreme irony produces in the reader an almost humorous response at the reversals of Antiochus (9:4-8). The predictable nature of retribution is shown in confidence of the narrator’s descriptions of the Lord’s emotions towards enemies (5:17-20 and 6:13-14). Characters trust in predictable retribution to follow. In 7:34-35 the seventh son assures Antiochus of God’s punishment and its inescapable consequences. Judas is confident that God will attack those opposing the Jews in 8:18.
Fourthly, the meting out of negative outcomes to the Jewish people themselves is described differently. These negative outcomes are still attributed to God but termed “discipline” (6:12, 14; 7:32; 10:4). The outcomes are similar to those befalling the enemies such as pain and brutal murder (6:10-11; 7:1-23). Similar to the punishment of the enemies, the Jews experience discipline in response to their sinful ways (4:16-17; 6:14-17). The key distinction between punishment and discipline is the narrator’s interpretation of God’s purposes.
Finally, God’s timing of punishment and discipline is intentional and meaningful. The distinction between punishment and discipline is clearly shown to be in the author’s mind by the comments of 6:12-17. The narrator clarifies that the swift discipline is actually merciful kindness. The Lord is patient in His punishment of the other nations waiting to give them the full judgment for all of their sins. The Lord disciplines the Jews as a sign of their relationship not forsakenness. This interpretation by the author is a means of dealing with the occupation of Israel and seeming distance of the Lord from the time of the exile.
The New Testament shares the retribution concepts of 2 Maccabees with several comparable statements. Due to space limitations, the comparison will engage the works of three New Testament authors. First, Paul’s statements in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 shares 2 Maccabees’ view of the Lord’s measuring of sins prior to punishment. Paul’s words of God’s wrath falling upon the Jewish people are also similar in sense to the statements of 8:11 and the overtaking of God’s judgment upon Nicanor. Paul has now interpreted God’s retributive punishment as falling upon the Jewish nation.
Secondly, 2 Peter displays similar concepts to 2 Maccabees on the predictable nature of retribution and timing of its occurrences. 2 Peter 2:9-10 functions as part of a larger discussion about false teachers. It describes the unrighteous as “under punishment” waiting for the predictable outpouring from God. 2 Peter 3:7-10 concerns timing as God is said to not be slow in keeping promises but waiting in judgment to prevent perishing. Here the patience of God is merciful over against 2 Maccabees’ swift mercy.
Finally, the unnamed author of Hebrews shares the viewpoint of discipline in Hebrews 12:3-11. Discipline is acknowledged as painful (Heb. 12:11) but proof of a relationship with the Lord. The purpose of the discipline is clearly for purifying of one’s life in holiness (compare Heb 12:10 and 2 Macc 7:32).
The tenets of retribution from 2 Maccabees can be related to New Testament teachings as well. These mental connections regarding retribution require closer attention to what is congruent and what is purposefully distinct in the New Testament. The differences that might be detected do not undermine the corollaries of retribution presented between 2 Maccabees and these New Testament passages.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
