22) Disciple program week 5 - History of the Exodus

In Psalm 136:10-16 God is praised as the one who intervened on behalf of the people of Israel 

        who struck Egypt through their firstborn,
for his steadfast love endures forever; 
        and brought Israel out from among them,
for his steadfast love endures forever; 
  with a strong hand and an outstretched arm,
for his steadfast love endures forever; 
who divided the Red Sea in two,
for his steadfast love endures forever; 
and made Israel pass through the midst of it,
for his steadfast love endures forever; 
  but overthrew Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea,
for his steadfast love endures forever; 
  who led his people through the wilderness,
               for his steadfast love endures forever; 


From a historical point of view it is important to determine, as best we can, what happened when a group of people under the leadership of Moses left Egypt in a quest for freedom that would come to be known as the Exodus.  There is a natural and understandable desire to get behind the biblical narrative to the facts.  How are we to deal with the fact that an event that loomed so large for the people of Israel is not even mentioned in Egyptian sources? One one level the issue is one of whether the biblical narrative can be trusted or not as historically accurate. But there are other considerations as well, and these concern the ways in which events of national significance were recorded in the Ancient Near East at that time,  and the ways in which original events were then reinterpreted and used as a means of shaping the religious and national identity of the people of Israel. In some ways we are on firmer ground when our focus shifts from what happened, to what it came to mean. The Exodus was a moment that shaped Israel's national consciousness, and its understanding of God acting in history.

A contemporary example may be be helpful here. The Gallipoli landing in the first world war and the events that followed have shaped three nations: Australia, New Zealand and Turkey. For Australian and New Zealand troops it was a baptism of fire and, despite great courage and fortitude, a defeat. For Modern Turks it was the birth of a new nation and a victory in the face of almost overwhelming odds. One of the great ironies of history is that all these nations have great respect for one another, and the annual remembrance services that take place at Gallipoli have served to unify rather that divide! It has become a sacred place for all three nations. It is not that what happened and the subsequent understanding of these events are at odds with one another, so much a matter that the meaning and significance have grown with the passage of time in ways that the participants would never have expected. From a  Christian perspective it is easy to find a parallel in the brutal and shameful death of Jesus that came to be interpreted as an act of love, the definitive moment of God's saving activity, and as a model for Christian life. Yes, Jesus died on a Cross, but what it means for Christians is something that continues to grow and develop.

The portrayal of God as remembering the covenant and acting for the people of Israel is a powerful and moving one that comes through the narrative of the Exodus, but there are other disturbing elements from a Christian perspective, in particular,  the way in which  God hardens the heart of Pharaoh that leads to the suffering of the people of Egypt. What kind of God is portrayed here, and what might help us understand why God is depicted in this way? It is important to remember the function of these traditions for a wounded and often powerless people. Make no mistake, the people of Israel were often in the situation of being a powerless or subject people under the power of the  Egyptians, Philistines, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Seleucids or Romans. Part of the agenda in the theme of hardening the heart of Pharaoh was that showing Pharaoh, or any other foreign ruler for that matter, who really had the power of life and death.

The links below provide two contrasting views about what archaeology can confirm regarding some of the details of the Exodus narrative.

Egyptologists and the Exodus
Prof Dever speaks about memory, tradition and archeology

21) Why does the God of the Old Testament seem so different to the loving father spoken of by Jesus?

Just the other night in our Bible study the observation was made to the effect that the God of the Old Testament  seems a very different God to the one spoken of by Jesus. It can be a bit of a shock to encounter texts that portray God as vengeful, punishing, jealous and demanding.  At the same time there are comforting texts that speak of the mercy of God and God's compassion not only for Israel, but for all creation. How do we make sense of the strong contrasts between these points of view?

One of the first things to remember is that Israel's understanding of God developed over time and that the Old Testament preserves different perspectives, sometimes even within the same period. There are texts that will focus on God's power to punish such as:

Lev. 26:18 And if in spite of this you will not obey me, I will continue to punish you sevenfold for your sins.

Psa. 59:5 You, LORD God of hosts, are God of Israel.
Awake to punish all the nations;
spare none of those who treacherously plot evil.

Is. 13:11 I will punish the world for its evil,
and the wicked for their iniquity;
I will put an end to the pride of the arrogant,
and lay low the insolence of tyrants.

These texts, like all texts, need to be interpreted and their purpose understood within their original context. Israel was often in a situation where it needed to be reminded that their God was, despite appearances, a God of power more than equal to the high gods of the nations that surrounded them. It was only natural that their language would reflect that of their contemporaries. If God was not acting for them how was this to be understood? If they were suppressed by more powerful nations, or in exile was it that their God was powerless, or was God punishing them for their sins? The people of the Old Testament needed to understand their history and if calamities befell them then this was often seen through the filter of being a direct punishment for the sins of individuals, or the nation.

This is not the only point of view that we encounter in the Old Testament.  By way of contrast there are texts that speaks poignantly of  Israel's God as the one who listens to the cries of the people:

Ex. 3:7 Then the LORD said, “I have observed the misery of my people who are in Egypt; I have heard their cry on account of their taskmasters. Indeed, I know their sufferings "

Deut. 26:7 we cried to the LORD, the God of our ancestors; the LORD heard our voice and saw our affliction, our toil, and our oppression. 

 Psa. 40:1 I waited patiently for the LORD;
he inclined to me and heard my cry. 

The God of Israel's tradition was the one that Jesus called Father and there are plenty of texts that talk of the mercy of God rather than judgement.  A great example is God's self disclosure after the episode of the people's idolatry in Ex 32.

Ex. 34:6 The LORD passed before him, and proclaimed,
“The LORD, the LORD,
a God merciful and gracious,
slow to anger,
and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness"

The traditions found within the prophets will speak of judgement, but they also speak of graciousness and mercy.

Joel 2:13 "rend your hearts and not your clothing.
Return to the LORD, your God,
for he is gracious and merciful,
slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love,
and relents from punishing."

It is worth reflecting on the fact that even among Christians today there are those more comfortable with a vengeful God rather than a merciful one. It should not surprise us that the same variation can be found within the Old Testament itself!

Karen Armstrong is well recognised for her work in the area of comparative religions and in tracing the development of the understanding of God. You may be interested in her work in this area and in the development of the idea of the Golden Rule and compassion within the major religions.

Karen Armstrong on the Roots of Religion

20) Covenant - Disciple Program week 4

One of the key concepts in the Old Testament is that of the covenant relationship between the people of Israel and their God. Being in this covenant relationship defined them as a people set apart, but it also challenged them to faithfulness to the living God, and living in right relationship with other members of the covenant community.

The first covenant is that with Noah:

 Gen. 9:11 "I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” 

The next covenant is that with Abram and renewed under his new name Abraham in Gen 15.

 Gen. 15:18-21 "On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.” 

Gen. 17:2 "And I will make my covenant between me and you, and will make you exceedingly  numerous.” 

The covenant with the people of Israel looms large within the Pentateuch and it is the covenant with Moses at Sinai/Horeb that will take pride of place in Israel's imagination because now it is not just a covenant made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but now the people are involved and must voice their own response. Moses is instructed by God to remind the people that:

 Exod. 19:5-6  "Now therefore, if you obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my   treasured possession out of all the peoples. Indeed, the whole earth is mine, but you shall be for me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the Israelites.”  

For their own part the people now respond:  “Everything that the LORD has spoken we will do.” Exod 19:8.

This covenant will be renewed in the book of Deuteronomy (the second law) when the new generation of the people of Israel prepare to enter the land, and are reminded that the covenant made at Horeb is now made with them, and they are called to bind themselves to it.

Deut. 5:2-3  "The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb.  Not with our ancestors did the LORD make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive today. "

Photo By: G. Dall’Orto

Covenants and treaties in the Ancient Near East

This pattern of stipulations and acceptance is part of the making of treaties, agreements and covenants that were well established in the Ancient Near East.



Suzerainty/Vassal treaties were made between a great monarch and a lesser king and usually had six parts:

      1) Preamble
      2) Historical prologue
      3) Stipulations
      4) Provisions for treaty deposit & public reading
      5) List of Divine witnesses to the treaty
      6) Blessings & curses (for fidelity or infidelity to
          the treaty)

Parity treaties, as the name suggests, were made between two parties of equal status and these were made between rulers forging alliances, merchants in establishing trade agreements, and in marriage contracts between the father of the bride and the groom (the bride was not seen to be of equal status with the groom).

Another form of treaty was that of land that was gifted to a loyal subject as a reward for faithful service. In these treaties it is the donor who makes the promise of the land and there are no demands made of the recipient.

The Old Testament covenants share many of the elements of contemporary Ancient Near Eastern covenants and treaties, but they do not fit these patterns exactly. Clearly the God of Israel takes the role of the greater monarch, as in Vassal treaties but it is interesting to note that in Israel's history, for all the stipulations and agreed blessings and curses, God is always faithful, even when Israel is not.

Psa. 105:8-10  "He is mindful of his covenant forever, of the word that he commanded, for a thousand generations, the covenant that he made with Abraham, his sworn promise to Isaac, which he confirmed to Jacob as a statute, to Israel as an everlasting covenant "

Is. 54:10 "For the mountains may depart and the hills be removed, but my steadfast love shall not depart from you, and my covenant of peace shall not be removed, says the LORD, who has compassion on you."

19) Were there giants in Genesis?

The movie Noah has given rise to a number of questions from our study group, and one of those concerns the giants that feature in the movie, and whether there is any scriptural basis for them. The first thing to say is that the movie is a creative adaptation and there is no mention of eight-armed giants fighting with Noah in the Old Testament. In providing background for the Flood story Gen 6:1-4 mentions the Nephilim which some versions of the Bible translate as 'giants.' The New Revised Standard Version  transliterates the Hebrew word without indicating what it means, whereas other versions have opted to provide a meaning for the term such as giants. There are two texts in which the term Nephilim occurs in the Old Testament, the first being Gen 6:1-4.

When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. Then the LORD said, “My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown. 

The Nephilim are also mentioned in Numbers 13:33" There we saw the Nephilim (the Anakites come from the Nephilim); and to ourselves we seemed like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”  

The passage from Numbers would certainly support the idea of these people being larger and stronger than the people of Israel. Gen 6:4 describes them as heroes and warriors. Whether they were a race of giants as we would consider it remains to be seen, and in our own experience there is considerable difference in the stature of races. On the basis of the report of the size and strength of the Nephilim the people of Israel lose faith in God, and their ability to enter into the land of promise. It is for this reason that the people will then be punished by having to remain in the desert wandering until the next generation who would have the courage and faith to enter the land. The tradition about Goliath might support the idea of a larger race of people, but it could just as easily refer to a person who was a great warrior who was larger and stronger than the usual range.

The meaning of the word Nephilim is uncertain and it has given rise to much speculation over the centuries. Because it comes from the Hebrew verb 'to fall' it later became associated with fallen angels. The Hebrew of  Gen 6:4 is unclear whether the Nephilim mentioned are the same as the sons of God that feature in the same verse. A verse such as this has been used as evidence for visitors from other planets and I would suggest that great care needs to be taken to establish the meaning of the text before engaging in such speculation. The phrase  'the sons of God' has been interpreted as meaning angels, royal figures, or the godly descendants of Seth. There are times when we have to admit to the limits of our ability to unravel the meaning of an ancient text that has been interpreted and reinterpreted over centuries, and this is one of them! It is difficult enough to determine what the tradition about the Nephilim meant in its original context, and this complexity is further increased by the manner in which this ancient tradition is then incorporated into the book of Genesis.

18) Were there Old Testament tools that helped Christians deal with Jesus' death?

Since we have entered into Holy Week it is an opportune time to take you back in time to the days of the first generation of Christians and the ways they made sense of the death of Jesus. St Paul in the letter to the Corinthians expressed succinctly the enormous challenge they faced: " For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles " 1 Cor. 1:22-23. Jesus' brutal death was seen as a punishment by Rome for a failed attempt to set up an alternate ruler to the Emperor. Jesus was killed under the charge of sedition. While that may not have been a problem for those Jewish circles that opposed Roman rule, such as the Zealots and Essenes, it was a problem for the ruling elite made up of the Herodians and the Sadducees. Jesus, and those who followed him, were naturally seen to be subversive and viewed with suspicion. 

One resource that lay readily at hand from the Old Testament was that of the suffering of the righteous a theme often explored in the Old Testament, particularly in the Wisdom literature and the martyr tradition that developed in the inter-testamental period.

Psa. 94:21 They band together against the life of the righteous,
and condemn the innocent to death. 
Psa. 37:32   The wicked watch for the righteous,
and seek to kill them. 

Wis. 2:12 “Let us lie in wait for the righteous man,
because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions;
he reproaches us for sins against the law"

Wis. 3:5 -6 Having been disciplined a little, they will receive great good,
because God tested them and found them worthy of himself; 
 like gold in the furnace he tried them,
and like a sacrificial burnt offering he accepted them. 

This rich tradition helps us to understand that when Jesus dies in Luke 23:47 the centurion will not declare Jesus to be the Son of God, as in Mark 15:39, but one who is just and innocent. In this Luke refers to the well developed tradition of the suffering and vindication of the righteous.

We are all used to the moving and powerful text from Isa 52:13-53:12 that has shaped the imagination of countless Christians over the centuries that speaks of the mysterious figure called the suffering servant who carries the burdens of others. Matthew makes use of this figure to unpack the meaning of the ministry and the death of Jesus as having a saving power for others “He took our infirmities and bore our diseases” Matt 8:17. 

The Passover also provides a rich background in which early Christians could see the death of Jesus, particularly with Jesus identifying his sacrifice of self  in Matt 26:28 as a new covenant in his blood that is poured out for the forgiveness of sins. The death of Jesus is then a means used to bring humanity into right relationship with God. Both Mark 10:45 and Matt 20:28 preserve the saying of  Jesus as the Son of Man who comes to give his life as a ransom for others.

It was only to be expected that Jewish Christians would delve deep into their own tradition to provide a frame of reference in which the death of Jesus could be appreciated, and its deeper meaning in God's saving plan be understood and then communicated to others. Their creative re-reading of their own tradition provided them with a means to convey their profound belief that the death of Jesus was no accident, on either God's part or by Jesus himself. As Gal 2:20 expresses it "the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." 

17) Original Sin seen from a Jewish perspective

While Christians speak of the doctrine of original sin as though it is a biblical concept it is important to know that the idea of original sin was first treated as such by Irenaeus the Bishop of Lyons in the 2nd century, and that it was later further developed in the 4th century by Augustine.

Michaelangelo - Sistine Chapel

Many Christians would be surprised to learn that the concept of original sin is one that is unfamiliar to Judaism. This does not mean that there is no sense of the reality of sin in Judaism,  far from it. The first eleven chapters of Genesis address the subject of human frailty and the reality of sin, but a Jewish reading of these chapters does not focus so much on an original sin of the first couple that set off an avalanche of sin that continues to this day, leaving the human family irretrievably fractured and broken, so much as the reality that there are competing inclinations nestled in the human heart.  There is an original blessing that is endangered by what is found within the individual. Judaism is right to stress the original blessing of all created things and the freedom of every person. In order for there to be true freedom, there must be the capacity to choose. Strictly speaking sin is first mentioned in Gen 4:7 where Cain is warned that sin is lurking at the door and that he must master it - how true that is! By Gen 8:21 God reflects on why humanity is not to be destroyed because of the inclination of the human heart towards evil. This is not to say that humanity will always sin, so much as to highlight an inclination that has to be mastered. It also provides a glimpse of God's appreciation of our inherent frailty and the Jewish understanding that while all creation is blessed only God is perfect.

Original sin to be best understood as shorthand for realities we all know well. Life  places before us choices every day. We can choose life or death, selfishness or generosity, love or hate, good or evil. Original sin is better understood that capacity in us to choose what is not for our good or the good of others. At the same time we carry in ourselves, our family history, and our human history the consequences of the wounds of those who have gone before us. 

The first 11 chapters of Genesis creatively and imaginatively reflect on our human story, and preserve some of Israel's reflection on the ups and downs of their own experience as a nation from their humble beginnings, to settlement in the land, the establishment and dissolution of the united kingdom of Judah and Israel, and the destruction of the Northern Kingdom by the Assyrians in 722 BCE, and the deportation to Babylon in 587 BCE. They had come to appreciate human frailty, but also God's blessing as their history had unfolded over the centuries. The difference between their perspective on original sin and some later Christian perspectives is one of emphasis. Rather than seeing a person as a sheet of paper already marked by original sin the emphasis is on the freedom of the person to choose good or evil. Our lives are a blank sheet of paper -  what we write on it depends on us since we are free to choose. As Moses reminds the people in Deut 30:19 " I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life so that you and your descendants may live".

A Jewish View of Original Sin

Why Jews reject the idea of original sin   

16) What are Christians to do with the Old Testament view of the nations?

One of the surprises that lies in store for Christian readers is the focus on the people of Israel on the one hand, and the negative portrayal of the nations on the other. It is disconcerting to encounter texts that call on God to punish the nations.The Psalms speak of the living God who punished the nations and displaced them so that the people of Israel could inherit the land.

Psa. 135:10  He struck down many nations

and killed mighty kings— 

Psa. 135:11  Sihon, king of the Amorites,

and Og, king of Bashan,

and all the kingdoms of Canaan—

 Psa. 135:12  and gave their land as a heritage,

a heritage to his people Israel.

Deut. 3:3 So the LORD our God also handed over to us King Og of Bashan and all his people. We struck him down until not a single survivor was left. 

We find ourselves wondering about the nations we hear about in the Old Testament and whether God has any care for them at all. If God is the God of all creation how come it is only the covenant people that seems to have any claim on God's mercy and love?

These are confronting texts and it is no surprise that many Christians are uneasy with such sentiments in the Old Testament and wonder how we can use them, if at all, in a constructive way.

These uncomfortable texts forcefully remind us that when we read the Old Testament we are reading the sacred literature of the people of Israel, and it is written unashamedly from their perspective, and they preserved these traditions and we should expect them to reflect their sentiments and view of the world. Like so many themes in the Old Testament one question leads to more questions,  and all this highlights the need for a more subtle and nuanced perspective from which these texts can be interpreted and used by another readership, namely, ourselves!

One thing to be aware of is that the people of Israel were often not the ones in power as one superpower in the Ancient Near East replaced another. There was always a battle for power across the Fertile Crescent between Egypt or Mesopotamia. As one or the other extended their influence the trade routes that traversed biblical Israel were often battle grounds in these power plays.  Armageddon (Har-Meggido, the hill of Megiddo) was deemed to be the place where the final battle would take between good and evil. It was strategically located, and controlling it was critical in order to gain access to the land. It was on that plain that King Josiah would die in battle (2 Chr 35:22).

Meggido  (sourced from http://www.dstaylor.me/?p=318)

Given that the people of Israel were often powerless, or subjects of more powerful nations, their literature and stance towards the nations reflects this negative experience.  One of the key elements behind their lack of respect for the nations was their idolatry and worship of false gods.

Deut. 12:3 Break down their altars, smash their pillars, burn their sacred poles with fire, and hew down the idols of their gods, and thus blot out their name from their places. 

Such a text as this clearly expresses Israel's point of view of the nations that surrounded them, and their worship. At the same time we need to be aware of other Old Testament texts  where the nations are not excluded from God's saving plan. In Gen 12:3 Abram is told that " in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."  In the book of Tobit 14:6 the hope is expressed that all the nations will come to believe in the living God "Then the nations in the whole world will all be converted and worship God in truth."  One of the most surprising texts comes from the prophet Isaiah when Cyrus of Persia is spoken of as an instrument of God, and as God's anointed one (messiah).

Is. 44:28 who says of Cyrus, “He is my shepherd,

and he shall carry out all my purpose”;
and who says of Jerusalem, “It shall be rebuilt,”
and of the temple, “Your foundation shall be laid.”
  

Is. 45:1   Thus says the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus 

These texts provide a counterpoint to the passages where the nations are evaluated negatively within Israel's sacred literature. Of course these passages are exceptions to the general rule, and they are all the more surprising given the generally negative view of the nations.

Where does that leave us as Christian readers? The first thing is not to be confused into thinking that the attitude of the biblical Israel towards the nations has to be ours. As Christian readers there are texts that demonstrate how difficult it was even for the first Christians to develop a wider perspective. Matt 15:24 testifies that some Christian communities preserved traditions indicating Jesus' own sense of mission was to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, before directing the disciples to go to the nations in Matt 28:19.

The text of Eph 2:14 is certainly one to bear in mind as we reflect on these matters, speaking as it does of the dividing wall that has been broken down between Jews and Gentiles by means of the death of Jesus: " For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us."

Such texts as these remind us that we need to be mindful of the development of ideas within the formation of the Bible and not to take a particular text without being conscious that often within the Scriptures, as in our lives, there is growth and development. Thank goodness for that!

15) The relationship of Old Testament Books to each other

This might seem an odd topic to introduce here but it often happens that general readers of the Old Testament are not aware of the ways in which the various works and streams of tradition that make up the Old Testament are related to one another.

For a start the order of the books as we have it in the Old Testament is not necessarily the order in which they were written. This already introduces a level of complexity that can be perplexing when we begin the process of interpreting a passage or book. We are so used to being able to carry around countless documents electronically in our phones, iPads and laptops that it becomes hard to imagine what it was like in the Ancient Near East where materials were preserved by being written on parchment scrolls, or on papyrus. To carry about the information held in any modern edition of the Bible would have required many scrolls, and that was expensive and such collections would have been the normally held in synagogues or in scriptoria such as the Essenes had in Qumran.

In an earlier post we have already made mention of the ways in which the developing scriptural traditions were gradually formed into larger collections: the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings. We have also indicated that even within a single book like Genesis a number of streams of tradition have been combined. To my mind this is a reminder that the Old Testament is the end result of complex and dynamic processes - the result of many hands, voices and hearts over centuries.

An example that may help when thinking of the Old Testament is to look up at the stars. When you look at the night sky light is coming from many different stars and galaxies. The light might be hitting our eyes at the one time, but some of those stars are no longer in existence, while other light comes to us from our own Sun and is reflected off the Moon. Some of the beams of light have travelled for a thousand years, others but a few minutes. In a similar way when we pick up the Old Testament we look at it as a whole when in reality it preserves traditions, voices and experiences from many different times and places.

We are not used to reading the book of Deuteronomy, and thinking of looking at the prophet Jeremiah, or dipping into the Psalms, mainly because we tend to look at them as unrelated. The reality is that many of the voices can be coming from the same time in Biblical Israel's life. For this reason it is very helpful to  consult reference works that can assist us by providing timelines and indicating how books we think of as separate were written at the same time - sometimes expressing different points of view, at other times with more uniformity and agreement. I appreciate this makes things sound more complex than you may have imagined. On the other hand, it serves as a powerful reminder that the Bible is an immensely rich tapestry, and much more intricately woven than we might have otherwise imagined.

14) What's in a name? Biblical names and their meanings

The other day the question came up about the meaning of biblical names when someone asked why it is that in some translations Adam is called by that name or as "the man". Adam's name comes from the noun for the red earth. In Gen 2:7 God takes the red earth, fashions it, and breathes life into it creating man. Eve's name is equally symbolic and it means "living one" and comes from the verb to be - an appropriate name for the mother of humanity in Gen 3:20. When Sarah and Abraham are told that in the following year they will be blessed with a son Sarah laughs and the meaning of the name is "he laughs", a name which will describe the joy he brings for the couple and the joke they see in the promise of a son in their old age. Abraham's own name is "father of multitude," a highly appropriate name for someone in whom all the nations will be blessed Gen 17:5.

There are many occasions when a name will be given for a person or a place, and that name will be explained for the reader. Such explanations are called etymologies and they are frequent in the Old Testament. In Gen 11:9 the name Babel is explained as being due to God confusing the languages of humanity as a punishment for trying to be like God in building a tower up to heaven, and Beer-Sheba is the name given to the place where God and Abraham swear their faithfulness to each other in Gen 21:31. When we read these explanations we normally think that this has been added to the text for our benefit, but the explanations are already there in the Hebrew text, and they serve the purpose of pointing the reader towards the deeper meaning of places and people.  God's purposes are deeply embedded in the events of life and these names ensured that experiences or attitudes, both positive and negative, would not be forgotten. An example of this is the testing of God and the grumbling of the people when they have no water in the wilderness. While the water is provided the attitude of the people is not to be forgotten and enshrined in the names of Massah and Meribah in Exod 17:7. One only has to look at Deut 6:16; 9:22; 33:8 and Psa 95:8 to see just how representative this moment proved to be and how these names were used as a warning and as a teaching tool.

A beautiful and powerful example of names being used to convey a message of hope and love is found in Is 62:4 when the people of Israel needed to be encouraged at the time of exile and resettlement.

Is. 62:4 You shall no more be termed Forsaken,
and your land shall no more be termed Desolate;
but you shall be called My Delight Is in Her,
and your land Married;
for the LORD delights in you,
and your land shall be married.

In the New Testament names continue to be used as a means of teaching. Jesus' own name is not without significance and Joseph is informed about Mary: "She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins" Matt 1:21. This points us to the heart of Jesus' mission, and only two verses later in Matt 1:23 Jesus' other name of Emmanuel is given which means God-with-us.

In John's Gospel Jesus has a beautiful name for his disciples that is a source of challenge and hope: 

John 15:15 I do not call you servants any longer, because the servant does not know what the master is doing; but I have called you friends, because I have made known to you everything that I have heard from my Father. 

13) The world view of Genesis - reflections on Disciple Program Week 2

Thank you to each of you who attended last night and for your questions arising from the study of Gen 1-2 and its two accounts of creation. It is good to see how you are wrestling with these creation accounts that come to us from a very different world than our own. Not only do they come to us from a different time and place, the world view was clearly pre-scientific and quite clearly limited in its scope.

The world of the Old Testament is that of the Ancient Near East some 4000-3000 years ago and both their understanding of the physical world, and their geography, was understandably significantly different to our own - accustomed as we are to satellite imagery and radar maps. The internet has made the world so much smaller and it is easy to forget that in biblical times so little was known about the peoples that lived beyond the horizon other than the information brought by travelers, traders and armies.  In Gen 10 mention is made of Noah's sons Shem, Ham and Japheth and their repopulating the world after the flood. Just how much the perspective is limited to that of the Ancient Near East can be seen in the map below.

The understanding of the physical world was also quite different from our own and rather than thinking of planet earth as part of a solar system in the context of an enormous and infinite universe the sun, moon and stars were contained within a firmament that separated the waters above from the waters below. As you can see in the accompanying graphic the idea of the earth as a planet rotating around the sun was foreign to them.

Image from Logos Bible Software

The population of the world around 1000 BCE is estimated to be about 50 million people. The focus of the Biblical writers was on the peoples of the Ancient Near East and it would be safe to assume that they knew nothing of the Americas, the Pacific rim or East Asia as we know it today. All of us grow up limited by our context and while we can see the limitations of the Biblical world view 200 years from now imagine what they will be saying about the limitations of the knowledge of people of the 21st Century!

12) Great streams of tradition in the Old Testament

The Old Testament is often read by those who are devout but untrained as though it was all carved from one piece of stone, in one time and place, as trustworthy as it is static and unchanging. One of the great gains that has come from the sustained and meticulous study of the Bible in recent centuries is the appreciation of just how dynamic the processes are that have resulted in the Bible as we have it today. Like other disciplines the study of the Bible continues to develop as different questions and methods are used to explore the richness, depth and complexity of the Bible over  the centuries of its formation.

Source criticism is a method that has been used extensively used to trace the various streams of tradition that have been preserved in the Old Testament. The two creation accounts have been treated in earlier posts on this blog as a clear example of different traditions being preserved within biblical texts. Scholars had long been aware that there were different names used for God, and sometimes inconsistencies or duplication in narratives like that of the Flood story, that pointed in the direction of multiple points of view being combined in the final form of the Biblical text. It has been an area of study that gave rise to a theory called the Documentary hypothesis.

http://www.layevangelism.com/bastxbk/illustrations/docuhypoth.htm

In this theory great streams of tradition were not only formed over centuries, but they were also combined during the formation of the Old Testament.  According to this theory oral traditions were gradually committed to writing and preserved as traditions from the Northern tribes and kingdom were combined with those from the Southern tribes and kingdom. The major traditions have been identified as:

J - Yahwist (Southern)

E - Elohist (Northern)  J and E were combined about 700 BCE

P - Priestly (Soiuthern)

D - Deuteronomist  (about 621 BCE)

Events such as the religious reform in the time of Josiah, the fall of the northern and southern kingdoms, and then the shattering experience of the exile provided the catalyst for legal materials, narratives about the beginning of the nation, priestly traditions, and historical materials to be combined and preserved leading to the Old Testament text we are familiar with today. Different points of view about the conquest of the land, the creation of the world, necessary legal and liturgical texts and traditions are all combined in one final text. Their presence reveals something of the complexity and richness of Israel's history and the shaping of its self understanding and appreciation of its role in God's saving plan.

YouTube material you may wish to consult is readily available. Dr Christine Hayes at Yale provides a rich and comprehensive introduction to these matters. For the first of her series of lectures follow the links below.

The Parts of the Whole. Dr Christine Hayes

Of Seams and Sources. Dr Christine Hayes

Dr David Penchansky from the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota gives a helpful and brief overview of the Documentary Hypothesis.

Documentary Hypothesis

11) What are we to make of two creation accounts in Gen 1-2?

In previous posts I have mentioned the existence of two accounts of creation in Gen 1-2 and observed that the existence of the two accounts invites us to reflect on the nature of the two traditions and their respective messages. It also provides a timely reminder that the Bible is made up of many traditions  that were gradually combined over the centuries of Israel's faith journey. We are used to the fourfold Gospel tradition and this provides a useful starting point when examining these Old Testament traditions. Just as we are familiar with the different Gospel writers and their portraits of Jesus, so too, the Old Testament often preserves different traditions that deal with the same event or person from a number of perspectives.

The two creation accounts in Genesis 1-2 both have their own beauty and profound story to tell. They both speak of the wonder of God's creation and the unique role of humanity in that creation. It is interesting to see how the people of Israel saw no need to choose one tradition over the other. It is generally agreed that while the book of Genesis is the first book of the Old Testament it was probably not the first one written. While its traditions relate stories of the founders of the nation staring from the call of Abraham and Sarah and extend back to creation it was probably written in the time of the Exile in 587 BCE. It was both a difficult time and an extremely creative one as well. The Northern kingdom of Israel had gradually been deported at the hands of the Assyrians over a long and painful process from 740 to 722 BCE. In 587 BCE the rulers and the elite of the Southern kingdom were taken into exile in Babylon. It was during this time without land, king and Temple that they were forced to take stock, facing the challenges of maintaining their traditions, their faith, and their Jewish identity. It is said that necessity is the mother of invention, and so it was that confronted with the brutal reality of the experience of being in exile they gathered their traditions and told their stories.

(Image by Gavin Sustantio)

The first creation account extends from Gen 1:1-2:3 and it is majestic in tone and content as it tells of God's creative activity over six days.  God's powerful word separates the light from the darkness, and as each day unfolds the goodness of what is created and God's delight in it is sounded repeatedly in Gen 1:4, 10, 12,18,21. The final refrain in Gen 1:31 speaks of God seeing all that had been created and "behold it was very good." The basic stance of God towards creation is one of blessing and the narrative is punctuated by God's blessing of the creatures of the sea and the air in Gen 1:22, commanding them to be fruitful and multiply, and then the blessing is repeated in Gen 1:28 for the woman and man who have been created in God's image. Astute readers will note how even God rests on the seventh day and that this reflects the tradition of the Sabbath. This creation account is identified as coming from Priestly sources in the exilic and post exilic period.

The second creation account is found in Gen 2:4- 25 and has its own beauty which is quite distinctive. One of the first indications that we are dealing with another tradition is the name for God. The Priestly tradition speaks of God as Elohim whereas the second tradition known as the Yahwist refers to God as Yhwh Elohim. What is striking is that humanity is created last in the Priestly account of creation as a means of identifying our unique role as the stewards of God's creation. In the Yahwist account humanity is created first as God forms us from the earth, and then breathes life into our humanity. It has a beauty all it own and a sense of profound sense of intimacy between the creator and humanity. The first human being is then placed lovingly in Eden to till and care for it. God then sets out to create a partner for the first human being, and all the other living creatures are created and named, but they are not a fitting partner for this one who will tend the Garden. It is not until God forms woman from a rib of the man that humanity is complete and whole - man and woman.

Both the Priestly and Yahwist traditions have their beauty and power to move us a readers and people of faith. Fortunately we do not have to choose between one tradition or the other. The wisdom of those who preserved these traditions for future generations was that we would be impoverished if either were lost.

You may be interested in following the work has done in comparing the Biblical Creation accounts with the Creation accounts from the Ancient Near East by Dr Darrell Bock and Dr Richard Averbeck. In the second link Dennis Bratcher provides an introduction an translation of the Babylonian creation account.

 


 Comparing the Bible to other creation accounts

The Babylonian Creation Account - The Enuma Elish

10) Why are there different names for God in the Old Testament?

When people start reading the Old Testament closely they are often intrigued by the fact that they encounter many different names for God. There are a number of names that are based on the name El (God in singular form)  Elohim (God: plural form), El Shaddai (God Almighty), El Roi (The God who sees), El Elyon (God the most high). There are other names based on the four letter name Yhwh (tetragrammaton) that God gives to Moses in the episode of the burning bush in Exodus 3:13-14. The meaning of this especially sacred name for the people of Israel is based on describing God as the one who is, was, and will be. The variations for this name include Yhwh-ireh (God will provide), Yhwh-ropheh (God heals), Yhwh–nisei (God my banner), and Yhwh-sabaoth (God of hosts). Out of respect the name Yhwh was not spoken and as time went on it became customary to use this name for God combined with the vowels from another name for God, that is, Adonai (Lord). Sometimes people wonder where the name Jehovah comes from. This is due to the combination of the consonants of Yhwh with the vowels of Adonai. As fas as we are aware this combination does not come from biblical times.

It should come as no surprise that different names for God were used by different groups and tribes within Israel, and in different times and places. The formation of a number of tribes and groups into the nation of Israel was a complex and lengthy process and the different names for God are pointers to the diversity of points of view within Israel itself over centuries. Some names for God are linked to certain moments and experiences where a name will describe what God has done for an individual or the people. Other names are linked with sacred places and point to the ways in which the people of Israel gradually either incorporated or displaced the names used for the gods by the peoples that surrounded them.


Another Bible study resource you might like to explore within the Catholic tradition is by Michal Elizabeth Hunt.

http://www.agapebiblestudy.com

9) Making sense of Genesis 1-11

In a world where the birth of the universe is now explained by the theory of the Big Bang and where the complexity of life on our planet is  understood by means of the theory of evolution you would not be alone in feeling like a dinosaur believing in the Biblical account of creation. People find themselves wondering whether the Bible has lost its credibility and that the sceptics and atheists might be right after all.

There are some Christians who fight tooth and nail to prove the credibility of the Biblical accounts as factual accounts, on the other hand there are those who would dismiss Christians and the Biblical accounts as having nothing to say because they are simply stories. It is important to acknowledge that,  in a sense,  both the Big Bang and evolution are stories in their own right as they narrate how the universe we inhabit came to be as it is, and the series of events over millennia that led to the development and evolving of the many species that inhabit this amazing planet with us.  Charles Darwin identified survival of the fittest to be the engine room driving development and change. It might come as a bit of a surprise to proponents of evolutionary theory that the first eleven chapters of Genesis describe a similar phenomenon as the human family tends towards the kind of chaos where dog eats dog, where brother kills brother and the competition extends so far that human beings like Lamech will indulge in self-praise when a young man is killed in retaliation for being wounded and where vengeance extends to seventy-seven fold (Gen 4:24). This is survival of the fittest in a most extreme form. This example is not meant to suggest that evolutionary theory and the first chapters of Genesis can, or should, be synchronised in any way. They offer very different perspectives and set out to give answers to different questions.

It is not the purpose of the Big Bang or evolutionary theories to explain everything from every perspective. It would be unreasonable to expect them to. They are scientific accounts, not religious or philosophical in their purpose. The biblical stories are concerned with describing the creation of the universe by a God intimately related to all of creation. Both the creation accounts in Gen 1-2 highlight the privileged place of humanity in the created order as the stories develop. Gen 1-11 is concerned to relate how God's original blessing of all creation, humanity included, is threatened by a humanity that comes to be at war with itself and with God. What the biblical stories relate is not just how the world was created, but the interaction between God's will, human freedom and failure.  In the midst of human frailty God keeps opening new doors, new vistas, so that humanity family does not totally tear itself to pieces.

Ultimately the worth of the Gen 1-11 is not to be judged on the basis of historicity so much as their veracity - in other words - do they ring true, do they describe humanity accurately? They are unashamedly written from the perspective of faith with a view to explaining the world as we experience it. That there are two creation stories should already alert the reader that this material should not be judged according to the conventions of modern history writing or scientific enquiry. There is profound truth to be found in these chapters, but not in the form of science but in narrative  where human family seems hell bent on its own destruction, and God is heaven bent on saving us from ourselves!

Science and the Bible Professor John Lennox

Can Genesis Be Compatible with Evolution? The Veritas Forum

N.T. Wright on Evolution

8) Some Old Testament resources - The Bible Unearthed

The historical foundations for the Biblical stories that describe the beginnings of the Jewish tradition from the journeys of the patriarchs to the land of Canaan, the conquest and settlement in the land, and the establishment of the monarchy from the time of Saul, David and Solomon are the subject of intense scrutiny and debate. Biblical archeology is fascinating, and its' findings are sometimes controversial because the results are used to support various claims and counter claims about who has been gifted the land by God. The lyrics of the 1960 Exodus song begin with the words "This land is mine, God gave this land to me." What are we to make of the archeological evidence and its impact on our interpretation of the Biblical texts?

If you have been following this blog you will already be aware that my own position is one that simplistic answers to complex Biblical questions will not provide the kind of sufficiently solid foundation we are looking for. The truth is not going to be found by reverting to naive belief in the biblical traditions as they were shaped and handed on, nor by a radically sceptical position. We know enough about how news stories are shaped by media moguls in our own time not to make room for the likelihood that many forces, both political and religious, played their role in shaping the Biblical traditions. It's all part of coming to terms with the humanity of the scriptures knowing that they are God's word and at the same time mediated words that come, like all human words, from specific times and places and agendas. This can lead some people to become overly sceptical when other ways of appreciating the beauty and truth of the scriptures are also possible. When we think about the mystery of the incarnation we are reminded that God's Word became a human word in the person of Jesus. It was in the midst of all the messiness and fragility of the Roman province of Syria that Jesus was born. In a similar way God speaks in and through the scriptures. What is exciting and comforting to know is that God is present and speaking in the midst of it all!

The YouTubes below you might find of interest as you explore the archeology of the Bible.



YouTube The Bible Unearthed 1. The Patriarchs

YouTube The Bible Unearthed 2. The Patriarchs

YouTube The Bible Unearthed 3. The Kings

YouTube The Bible Unearthed 4. The Book

The Bible and Archaeology Blogspot

7) Disciple Program Week One - Authority

In preparing for this week's study we have been invited to read a wide range of Old Testament texts - some legal texts, some of them poetic texts like the psalms, others historical or from the prophets. Don't be surprised if it feels like you have been thrown into the deep end of the pool, and you are not sure how to swim! The texts come from many different times in religious journey of the people of Israel over hundreds of years. It takes time to become familiar with the history of the people of Israel and to know how to place what you you read into a context and framework that helps you to understand what you read. Good questions to ask are ones like:

1) When was this book written and what do we know about the historical and religious context? 

Every book in the Bible comes from a time and place and we need to aware of this to understand the message better. An example would be that the prophets often proclaimed a message of condemnation and doom when people were complacent, but in difficult times of suffering like the exile their message was one of comfort. A beautiful example of this is Isaiah 40. In the heady days when the Temple had been built by Solomon it comes as no surprise that Psalms were written that spoke of its glory and as a sign of God's blessing of the kingdom and its people.

2) What form of writing is this passage?

 This is an important question because it helps us to avoid falling into the trap of reading poetry as history, or prayers as legal documents. It also helps us not take literally things that are meant to be figurative or make a point in an extreme way. An example would be Jesus calling us to cut off out hands if they cause us to sin. Fortunately most people don't act on this! Imagine what our Church community would look like on a Sunday with everyone in wheelchairs without feet, hands, arms, tongue and eyes!

3) What are the images, ideas or thoughts that aren't clear to you?

Don't be worried by this because these passages were not written for people in the 21st Century, but for the people in their own time and place who knew what was being referred to e.g. Historical circumstances, personalities, places and events. Knowing that we need do a little background reading is a good thing and fortunately there are many commentaries that have been written who can act as trustworthy guides. Many study Bibles come with very useful introductions to each of the books and provide a great launching pad.

4) What captures my imagination or challenges me? What does this passage mean for me?

Here it is important to remember that we take from a passage is not limited to what it meant for its original audience. Because we believe the scriptures to be inspired and God's word we rightly turn to it for guidance and we can look at a passage not only for what it meant for the original audience, but also how it has been read over the centuries, and even more particularly, what it means for me.

The Catholic tradition has long encouraged a fourfold approach to reading the scriptures that acknowledge their authority, but also the many different and fruitful ways they can be read and appreciated.

• Literal - looking at the plain sense of the passage in its own religious and historical context
• Allegorical - a spiritual sense that is sensitive to, but not confined by, what it meant for the original audience. Here the text is reinterpreted in the light of Jesus Christ
• Moral- how the text text guides our moral life
• Eschatological - how the text helps us to prepare for meeting God face to face.