 |
|
     |
|
|
|
The Glory of Kings: A Festschrift for James B. Jordan
Fyodor Dostoevsky
(Christian Encounters Series)
Athanasius
(Foundations of Theological Exegesis and Christian Spirituality)
The Four: A Survey of the Gospels
Defending Constantine: The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of Christendom
From Behind the Veil: The Epistles of John
Deep Exegesis:The Mystery of Reading Scripture
1 & 2 Kings
Brazos Theological Commentary
The Promise Of His Appearing: An Exposition Of Second Peter
A Great Mystery: Fourteen Wedding Sermons
Deep Comedy: Trinity, Tragedy, And Hope In Western Literature
Miniatures & Morals: The Christian Novels of Jane Austen
The Priesthood of the Plebs: A Theology of Baptism
A Son To Me: An Exposition of 1 & 2 Samuel
From Silence to Song: The Davidic Liturgical Revolution
Ascent to Love: A Guide to Dante's Divine Comedy
Blessed Are the Hungry: Meditations on the Lord's Supper
A House For My Name: A Survey of the Old Testament
Heroes of the City of Man: A Christian Guide to Select Ancient Literature
Brightest Heaven of Invention: A Christian Guide To Six Shakespeare Plays
Wise Words: Family Stories That Bring the Proverbs to Life
The Kingdom and the Power: Rediscovering the Centrality of the Church
John Nugent’s The Politics of Yahweh: John Howard Yoder, the Old Testament, and the People of God [Theopolitical Visions series]
This is not to say that I find Yoder’s analysis of the OT persuasive in very respect. Tracing the development of culture from the garden through the flood, Yoder summarizes by saying “Adam makes the transition from nature to culture; Cain from culture to war. Culture (whose root meaning, we remember, was agriculture), is already morally ambivalent. It is close to nature, but not natural. It scratches open the soil, wounds the breast of Mother Earth, in order to wrest sustenance from it. . . . It thus becomes the occasion for fresh sin and the multiplier of damages.” Nugent goes on to summarize:
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 9:12 am
In her fascinating In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth
As Frymer-Kensky puts it, “There are only the strategies that are used along the various axes of power: women-man; men-men of power; Israel-nations.” Israel is often in a position of weakness: “Israel, as a small, beleaguered, and ultimately captured nation had good reason to value the powers of the weak. Intelligence, guilt, trickery, and astuteness are the very attributes that Israel needs to survive.”
Israel’s history under the old covenant is a pedagogy, but it is not a training in strength but a training for strength-in-weakness, fulfilled in the cross.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Friday, November 4, 2011 at 1:17 pm
According to Josephus (Antiquities, 2.10), Moses spent his youth leading Egyptian armies against invading Kushite/Ethiopians:
“Moses, at the persuasion both of Thermuthis and the king himself, cheerfully undertook the business: and the sacred scribes of both nations were glad; those of the Egyptians, that they should at once overcome their enemies by his valor, and that by the same piece of management Moses would be slain; but those of the Hebrews, that they should escape from the Egyptians, because Moses was to be their general. But Moses prevented the enemies, and took and led his army before those enemies were apprized of his attacking them; for he did not march by the river, but by land, where he gave a wonderful demonstration of his sagacity; for when the ground was difficult to be passed over, because of the multitude of serpents, (which it produces in vast numbers, and, indeed, is singular in some of those productions, which other countries do not breed, and yet such as are worse than others in power and mischief, and an unusual fierceness of sight, some of which ascend out of the ground unseen, and also fly in the air, and so come upon men at unawares, and do them a mischief,) Moses invented a wonderful stratagem to preserve the army safe, and without hurt; for he made baskets, like unto arks, of sedge, and filled them with ibes, and carried them along with them; which animal is the greatest enemy to serpents imaginable, for they fly from them when they come near them; and as they fly they are caught and devoured by them, as if it were done by the harts; but the ibes are tame creatures, and only enemies to the serpentine kind: but about these ibes I say no more at present, since the Greeks themselves are not unacquainted with this sort of bird. As soon, therefore, as Moses was come to the land which was the breeder of these serpents, he let loose the ibes, and by their means repelled the serpentine kind, and used them for his assistants before the army came upon that ground. . . .
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Monday, October 24, 2011 at 2:21 pm
According to the Jewish historian Artapanus (quoted by Eusebius in his Preparation for the Gospel), the Pharaoh of Moses’ nativity was Palmanothes, and his daughter, who rescued Moses, was named “Merris.” Josephus says that the daughter’s name was Thermuthis, Greek for Tawaret, “the hippopotamus goddess of wet-nursing who was a manifestation of Isis.”
David Rohl (A TEST OF TIME: THE BIBLE – FROM MYTH TO HISTORY V. 1 (A CHANNEL FOUR BOOK)
Exodus, a subversion of Egyptian myth. From the outset, Yahweh makes war on the gods of Egypt.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Monday, October 24, 2011 at 2:15 pm
When the Philistines capture the mighty Samson, he seems tame enough. They mock and abuse him until the Spirit of Yah returns and Samson pulls down the house.
When the Philistines learn that the ark of God is in the Israelite camp, they’re terrified that “mighty gods” contend with them. But when the capture the ark, it seems pretty tame too. Then Dagon pays homage to Yahweh’s throne, and plagues and deadly confusion follow the humbled ark goes.
No wonder the Philistines worry to Achish when they discover David and his warriors marching among the Philistines to fight Saul. He looks plenty safe, but he could turn out to be a Samson or an ark.
The church has the Spirit of Samson; the church is the earthly throne of God; the church is led by the greater David. She looks weak, but Philistines are right to worry.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Thursday, October 6, 2011 at 5:42 am
How do prophets harden and deafen the deaf?
Perhaps it works like this: Prophets speak in extremes. Prophets shout. Prophets “draw large and startling figures” (Flannery O’Connor). Yet nothing happens. They keep shouting and drawing. Still nothing happens. They shout louder, their colors get bolder. Years, then decades pass. Nothing happens.
Eventually, the prophetic shouts blend into the background, the white noise of traffic that we no longer hear. Their startling figures begin to look normal, and we might even hang a few in museums. It’s the patience of God that deafens the blinds, that leaves the numb ever number.
Beware the knowing smile at the crazy wearing a “The End Is Near!” sandwich board. Yours may be the smile of the deaf and blind. For there is a God who judges in the earth.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Saturday, October 1, 2011 at 4:26 am
The Hebrew verb lawah means “to join, to adhere.” It also means “to lend” and, confusingly, to “borrow.”
James Barr will be upset with me, but I can’t help but wonder if ancient Hebrews viewed loans as a sort of glue that joins the borrower and lender.
And – risking Barr’s further wrath – I note that lawah is the etymological root of Levi (Genesis 29:34), and that Levi is named such specifically because Leah hopes he will serve as a bond joining Leah to her husband.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Thursday, September 29, 2011 at 4:18 am
I have offered some reflections on the current evangelical murmur about social justice at www.firstthings.com.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Friday, July 29, 2011 at 3:21 am
A variety of Hebrew words are used for “covering.” The seraphim cover (kasah) their eyes, hands, and feet with wings, while the wings of the cherubim cover (sakak) the ark (Exodus 25:20), Yahweh’s hand covers (sakak) Moses as His glory goes by (Exodus 33:22), and Yahweh’s wings cover (sakak) those who take refuge in Him (Psalm 91:4). Inaddition, Hebrew uses forms of kaphar to describe various literal and metaphorical “coverings.”
Despite the variety of terms, there is arguably conceptual continuity among all these. Covering in reverence is linked to covering for protection. We come under the cover of the Lord’s wings, and we come covered. And the covering that is atonement is an act of reverence and respect to Yahweh, and also a protective covering. To be covered with the blood of atonement is to be qualified to come under the cover of Yahweh’s wings.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Wednesday, July 13, 2011 at 9:35 am
The Hebrew word “burden” (massa) can refer to a literal load that carried by an animal or person (Exodus 23:5; 2 Kings 5:17; 8:9). It is used in the literal sense of the Levitical crews that carry around the tabernacle and its furnishings (9x in Numbers 4). The Levites are Yahweh’s beasts of burden, His oxen.
It is used metaphorically to describe the “burden” of responsibility (cf. 2 Samuel 15:33; 19:35). And this metaphorical use expands to describe the responsibility or burden that Moses has in carrying all the people around (Numbers 11:11, 17; Deuteronomy 1:12). He is the chief beast of burden, responsible for carrying Israel out of Egypt to Canaan. When he complains that the burden is too heavy, Yahweh spreads out his Spirit and provides more burden-bearers. Already here, the notion of a “burden” has a prophetic connotation – Moses is the chief prophet, and at least two of the men who receive the Spirit that allows them to share Moses’ burden prophesy in the camp (Numbers 11:26-29). Someday, Moses hopes, everyone will have the Spirit and prophesy; everyone will share in bearing the burden of the people.
With the reorganization of the priesthood at the time the temple is built, the burden of the Levites gets redistributed and recast. Instead of carrying literal burdens, the Levites form a choir to sing the “burdens” of Israel’s worship (massa translated as “song” or “singing” in 1 Chronicles 15:22, 27).
These threads intertwine in the prophetic use of the term, especially in Isaiah (used 10x of a prophetic burden between chapters 13-23). We can say several things about the burden of the prophets.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Thursday, May 5, 2011 at 4:18 am
“Hades” is used in some 75 verses of the LXX, usually translating the Hebrew sheol, which is used about 65 times. But the distyribution of the usage is not even. Genesis uses sheol/hades four time, but outside of Genesis the word appears infrequently in the Pentateuch (Numbers 16; Deuteronomy 32:22). The term appears at the beginning and end of 1-2 Samuel (1 Samuel 2:6; 2 Samuel 22:6), and twice in 1 Kings 2 (vv. 6, 9). Otherwise, it is not used in the historical books at all.
When we open the wisdom literature, however, it pops up everywhere, and a few times in the prophetic books (hades in LXX: Job 7:9; 11:8; 14:13; 17:13, 16; 21:13; 26:6; 33:22; 38:17; Psalm 6:6; 9:18; 15:10; 17:6; 48:15-16; 54:16; 85:13; 87:4; 88:49; 93:17; 113:25; 114:3; 119:137; 138:8; 140:7; Prov 1:12; 2:18; 5:5; 9:18; 14:12; 15:11, 24; 16:25; 30:16; SoS 8:6; Is 14:9, 11, 15, 19; 28:15, 28; 38:10, 19; 57:9; Hos 13:14-15; Amos 9:2; Hab 2:5). Sheol is used in fewer than 20 verses in the MT of the prophetic books, half in Isaiah. It is used in 30+ verses in the five wisdom books.
That suggests that biblical wisdom has something significant to do with death and the grave.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Saturday, April 16, 2011 at 11:09 am
The Septuagint uses the word-group euaggel- primarily in military and political contexts to describe the proclamation of victory. This is not invariable (cf. Jeremiah 20:15
The Philistines cut off Saul’s head and strip his gear so that they can carry the “good news” to idols and people (1 Samuel 31:9). In his lament over Saul and Jonathan, David warns Israel not to evangelize Philistia with the news of the fall of Israel’s heroes (2 Samuel 1:20). When David later describes what he did to the Amalekite who thought that the death of Saul would be “good news” to David, he uses the same term (2 Samuel 4:10). 2 Samuel 18, where David awaits news of the battle with Absalom, is studded with the word (vv. 19, 20, 22, 25, 26, 27, 31).
Adonijah expects Jonathan the son of Abiathar to bring him good news (1 Kings 1:42), but he doesn’t. The lepers who find the Aramean camp abandoned realize after eating their fill that they shouldn’t keep the “good news” from the rest of the people in the city (2 Kings 7:9).
This meaning is in the background of the more “theological” uses elsewhere in the LXX. The “new song” of Psalm 96 is the “good news” (v. 2) of Yahweh’s s salvation, which comes when He judges the world in righteousness (v. 13). Good news comes because Yahweh the Divine Warrior gains His victory. The same goes for the good news of Yahweh’s reign announced in Isaiah 40:9, 52:7. The good news that the Spirit-anointed servant brings to the afflicted is good news of rescue and deliverance, liberty to captives and freedom to prisoners (Isaiah 61:1). The good news is good news of peace (cf. Nahum 1:15; 2:1 in LXX), a peace gained by righteous victory.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Tuesday, March 29, 2011 at 4:21 am
A student notes that foot-washing is an act of hospitality, in places like Genesis 18 and elsewhere.
It is also required of priests entering the tabernacle.
These amount to the same thing. Priests are given water to wash as they are welcomed into Yahweh’s house.
Purity rules are, perhaps, not rules of exclusion but an act of welcome.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Friday, February 11, 2011 at 4:30 pm
Poitier-Young emphasizes that Antiochus IV’s plundering of the temple was not merely utilitarian but symbolic. He removed the lampstand, “a symbol and assurance of God’s sustaining presence,” and thus effected “a symbolic de-creation.”
Likewise, taking out the curtain that divided the temple. Division is a key component of the ordered creation in Genesis 1, and by removing the curtain that served as “a symbol of God’s ordering of the gosmos, marking in space the divisions between what was profane, what was holy, and what was most holy,” Antiochus “aimed symbolically to negate these divisions, making of ordered space an undifferentiated chaos.”
Antiochus knew was he was doing: Women who circumcised their boys in defiance of the king’s decree were thrown from the wall: Instead of being a sign of inclusion in the protected covenant community, circumcision had become a sign of exclusion. Those who cut were cut off.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Tuesday, January 25, 2011 at 12:13 pm
From a detailed comparison of ANE prophetic/oracular texts with biblical ones, Wheaton’s John Walton (Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible
First, Israelite prophets indicted kings and or people for violations of covenant standards, while ANE oracles focused on “cultic neglect,” reflecting the prophets’ role as “ritual enforcers.”
Second, “Judgment in the ancient Near Eastern oracles is nearly nonexistent, while in Israel about half of all prophetic oracles contain an element of judgment. In pre-exilic classical prophecy, the oracles of judgment tend to focus on prognostications of the future and are paired with indictment. In postexilic prophecy, the judgment has often already come. . . . This Israelite style of prophecy is the opposite of ancient Near Eastern style, where divine support is the focus. In Israel divine disfavor is the focus, standing in opposition to the status quo. In Israel support of the deity is withdrawn more often than assured, and victory is projected for enemies rather than for Israel. The capital is to be destroyed rather than secure, and the dynasty is in jeopardy rather than affirmed.” No wonder Ahab was so upset with Micaiah.
Finally, though both Israelite and ANE prophets offer hope, in Israel the hope is “generally not intended to indicate divine support for the king. The hope offered is for after the judgment. . . . The contrast is clear: The ‘support’ category in the ancient Near East focused hope primarily on near-term victory and protection, legitimizing the current regime; Israelite aftermath oracles generally focused on the long term because the near future held judgment and defeat for the current regime, which is consequently stigmatized. Ancient Near Eastern prophecies functioned in a context of immediacy and urgency and had no longer-term value. In contrast, the hope that is offered in Israelite prophecy is presented as part of a divine plan that is eschatological and covenant based.”
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Tuesday, December 7, 2010 at 6:58 am
In answer to a reader’s question about the chronology of Solomon’s writings in the OT, I suggested this:
1. Proverbs is instruction to a son during his boyhood/adolescence/young adulthood. That seems to put it early-ish in Solomon’s life. He became king around 30 (there’s a complicated argument for this), and reigned 40 years (1 Kings 11:41). Rehoboam became king at 41 (1 Kings 14:21),so he was born the year before Solomon’s accession. He would have been 5 in Solomon’s fourth year when he began the temple and Solomon would have been 34 (1 Kings 6:1) and 12 when Solomon finished the temple in the 11th year of his reign when Solomon was 39 (1 Kings 6:37-38). If Solomon is writing Proverbs during Rehoboam’s adolescence/young adulthood, he would have been writing it during his 40s.
2. Ecclesiastes is mature reflection on Solomon’s achievements as king. It comes after he has built his own house and pleasure gardens and enjoyed the pleasures of women (Ecclesiastes 2), and has had time to find that it is all vanity. Solomon took 13 years to complete his own house (1 Kings 7:1); we’re not giving a starting date as far as I can see, but it seems to have started after the temple was finished (cf. 6:37-38). If that’s true, he started building his own house around the age of 40 and completed it in his early 50s. He gathered women throughout his reign, but 1 Kings 11 emphasizes that he was turned from Yahweh during his old age. If he completed his house at 53 or so, had enjoyed the pleasures of women, then his later reflections on the vaporousness of it all would reasonably happen during his late 50s/early 60s. Which puts Ecclesiastes a decade or two after Proverbs.
3. The Song is a celebration of a unique love (SoS 6:9). It seems that Solomon already has concubines and other wives, but not as many as he later gathers (6:8). But he still desires one particular woman. If this isn’t just cynicism, it seems as if the Song has to come early, before he is turned away to love many foreign women (1 Kings 11). If, as many suggest, the Song is a celebration of his love for the daughter of Pharaoh, it would have been composed sometime early in his reign.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Monday, August 9, 2010 at 4:07 pm
What is wisdom? Follow the canonical progression of wisdom books.
Proverbs: There are two women. Choose Lady Wisdom and reject Lady Folly.
Ecclesiastes: All is hebel. Death looms. Therefore, eat, drink, rejoice in the wife of your youth. Joy in your wife is the way to Lady Wisdom.
Song of Songs: A man rejoices in his bride, eating and drinking a feast of love.
So:
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Wednesday, March 10, 2010 at 12:47 pm
In Hebrew, the word nadib does double duty. It describes the “willing” spirit that inspires the people to donate to the tabernacle construction (Exodus 35:5), and the willing spirit that David hopes Yahweh will create in him (Psalm 51:14). It means generous, liberal.
At the same time the word means “noble.” In 1 Samuel 2:8, the poor are raised up to sit with the “nobles,” and in the Song of Songs 7:2, the bride is described as the “daughter of a noble,” a “princely maiden.”
I submit that we should read these two meanings together. To be generous is to act nobly; to be noble in ancient Israel had little to do with high birth and everything to do with generosity and liberality with goods and gifts. It is thus particularly striking that Hannah would look for the elevation of the “poor” to nobility: Those who have been oppressed and deprived are raised up to take a seat among the generous.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Wednesday, February 24, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Hezekiah and Josiah celebrate large-scale Passovers. Why? What are they being delivered from? In both cases, Passover is preceded by massive destruction of idols and idolatrous shrines. First, the humiliation of the “gods of Egypt” and then the Passover.
And that throws light back on the original Passover, which is not only about deliverance from the angel of death or from the tyrant Pharaoh, but a deliverance from Israel’s own devotion to Egypt’s gods.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Sunday, May 17, 2009 at 5:40 am
Throughout the Pentateuch and into Joshua, the land of promise is a land “flowing with milk and honey.” After that, the phrase virtually disappears. It is used in the prophets to describe the land given to Israel after the exodus (Jeremiah 11:5; 32:22; Ezekiel 20:6, 15; the partial exception is the “curds and honey” in Isaiah 7:22). Why?
Hippolytus may give us a clue. He describes an oblation of milk and honey alongside the oblation of wine; the milk and honey is a reminder of the land promised to “the Fathers” but also a reference to the land that Christ gave, that is, His flesh, “whereby they who believe are nourished like little children.”
Milk and honey are the foods of childhood, as Isaiah 7:15 suggests. In her infancy, Israel was given a land of baby food.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Monday, April 13, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Permission is given to use material on this site, provided the source is cited, blog entries are republished in full, and the author is notified in advance.
