Dr. Robert Webber - The Memorial Service

Picture: Bob Webber and his famous smile.


The memorial service for Bob Webber will be held on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. at Christ Church of Oak Brook.

The church is located at 31st and York Road in Oak Brook, Illinois. The church’s phone is (630) 654-1882.

The Webber Family has requested no flowers, but donations may go to:



The Robert E. Webber Center for an Ancient Evangelical Future
c/o Northern Seminary
660 E. Butterfield Rd. Lombard, IL 60148

OR

The Robert E. Webber Institute for Worship Studies
151 Kingsley Ave
Orange Park, FL. 32073

Claude F. Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Robert Webber, Northern Seminary

Dr. Robert Webber - An Obituary

The following obituary was published in Northern Seminary’s Web page:


Northern Mourns the Death of Dr. Robert Webber
April 30th, 2007

Northern Seminary is saddened by the loss of Myers Chair of Ministry, Dr. Robert E. Webber, who died Friday April 27 at age 73 at his home in Sawyer, Michigan, after an eight-month struggle with pancreatic cancer.

Dr. Webber's work and witness have impacted the evangelical world by bringing worship and ministry back to their historical Christian roots as established by the early church. Because of his influence through the publication of significant works like The Complete Library of Christian Worship, his Ancient-Future Series (The Divine Embrace, Ancient-Future Time, Ancient-Future Evangelism and Ancient-Future Faith), the "Chicago Call" in 1977 and more recently "The Call to an Ancient-Evangelical Future" in 2006, the church and a generation of pastors have been encouraged to challenge old assumptions about what constitutes an effective Christian witness in today's postmodern culture.

"Robert Webber influenced many thousands of Christian leaders through his speaking and writing," said Dr. Charles Hambrick-Stowe, Dean of the Seminary and Professor of Christian History. "Two qualities are at the heart of his teaching ministry - authenticity and accessibility. Northern Seminary students were blessed by these qualities in the classroom, in informal conversations on and off campus, and in times of prayer. We on the faculty were constantly blessed by his wisdom, his humor, and the no-nonsense way he brought the gospel to bear on everyday circumstances. We are grateful to have enjoyed Bob's presence among us these last seven years, which he described as the best years of his teaching career."

Dr. Webber was born in the Congo to Baptist missionary parents, and was raised in the Philadelphia area. Webber's educational path was denominationally diverse and unique-a BA from Bob Jones University (Greenville, NC); a BD at Reformed Episcopal Seminary; a ThM at Covenant Seminary (Presbyterian Church in America) and a ThD at Concordia Seminary (Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod).

He began his teaching career at Covenant College in 1960; Covenant Seminary in 1965; and then spent 32 years teaching at Wheaton College (Wheaton, IL) beginning in 1968 as Professor of Theology. In 1998, Webber founded the Institute for Worship Studies (now the Robert E. Webber Institute for Worship Studies) in Florida, which is a Masters and Doctorate level graduate school focused on the study of the theological, biblical, historical, sociological and missiological foundations of Christian worship. Webber retired from Wheaton in 2000 and was named Professor Emeritus upon his retirement. Also in 2000, Webber was appointed Myers Chair of Ministry at Northern Seminary and stated in his inaugural address, "Northern's commitment to develop a new kind of seminary education to prepare men and women for ministry in a postmodern world, is visionary and compelling. It's a great honor to be a part of this cutting-edge vision!"

Webber leaves behind a wife, Joanne, four children, John (Isabel), Alexandra (Jack), Stefany (Tom), and Jeremy (Susie), seven grandchildren, and a rich legacy of friends, colleagues and students.

Memorial services will be held in the Chicago area (details to follow) and at Grace Episcopal Church in Orange Park, FL on Friday, June 15 at 7 p.m., during the June session of the Institute for Worship Studies. In lieu of flowers, the family has requested that donations be made to the Robert E. Webber Center for an Ancient Evangelical Future, c/o Northern Seminary, 660 E. Butterfield Rd. Lombard, IL 60148 or the Robert E. Webber Endowment Fund at the Institute for Worship Studies, 151 Kingsley Ave. Orange Park, FL 32073.

Northern Seminary will be erecting a Memorial page on our website to honor Robert E. Webber through the thoughts, comments and memories of his friends, students and colleagues. If you would like to submit a thought or comment for this page, please go to: Webber Memorial Page Tribute.

P. S. For more information visit www.seminary.edu

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags:


Northern Seminary,
Robert Webber

A Royal Priesthood

Several days ago, I wrote two posts dealing with the idea of priesthood in the Old Testament. The first post “Jesus: A High Priest After the Order of Melchizedek,” dealt with the priesthood of David and the fact that he inherited the religious traditions of Jerusalem and became a priest in the same way Melchizedek served as priest and king of the old Jebusite city.

That article also dealt with the priesthood of Jesus. Jesus, a man from the tribe of Judah, became a priest, not because he was a Levite or from the tribe of Levi, but because he was a descendant of David. As such, he was considered eligible to carry on the tradition initiated by David. Thus, Jesus was a priest according the tradition established by Melchizedek and adopted by David.

The second article, “Rereading 2 Samuel 8:18: ‘David’s Sons Were Priests,’” dealt with the statement in 2 Samuel 18:8 that the sons of David were priests. Although the writer of Chronicles was not willing to affirm that David’s sons could serve as priests, the article concluded that David’s sons were indeed priests. They did not become priest because they were Levites. David’s sons exercised the priesthood because, as sons of the king of Jerusalem, they followed the same tradition established by Melchizedek and continued by David when he became king of Jerusalem.

Today I want to address the passage in 1 Peter 2:9 and offer a new proposal for the proper understanding of the fact that Christians are called “a royal priesthood.” My proposal is based on my previous discussion in the articles above. I presuppose that you have read those articles; if you have not read them, I suggest that you do so for the proper understanding of the discussion below.

The text in Peter reads: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9 ESV).

The expression “a royal priesthood,” has been interpreted in many different ways. Most commentators understand this expression as describing the dignity of the priestly office that Christians have attained (see 1 Peter 2:5). This expression was taken from Exodus 19:6. In Exodus the entire nation of Israel was to be a kingdom of priests. Thus, for Peter, Christians were set apart to offer spiritual sacrifices to God.

The word “royal” has been understood in different ways: that these priests belong to the king, that they are priests of the kingdom of God, that this title demonstrates the exalted position of believers, or the dignity of their office as priests, or that they belong to God, the king, and for this reason, all of God’s followers are royal.

Peter H. Davids, in his commentary on The First Epistle of Peter (p. 87) wrote:

The term for “priesthood” is found in the NT only here [2:5] and in 2:9. The latter reference shows clearly that Peter sees the church in terms of Israel’s priestly functions, for it alludes to Exod. 19:6. And other NT authors pick up the theme using different words (e.g, Rev. 1:6; 5:10; 20:6)–such language is used elsewhere only of Christ as a priest in Hebrews and of the Aaronic priesthood in Jerusalem.

The expression in 1 Peter 2:9 “a royal priesthood, a holy nation,” is taken from Exodus 19:6:

“You shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”

All English translations translate the expression ממלכת כהנים as "a kingdom of priests.” The Septuagint (LXX) translates the Hebrew expression as “a royal priesthood” in Exodus 19:6 and in Exodus 23:22, although the extended text of Exodus 23:22 does not appear in any English translation. It is clear that the citation in 1 Peter 2:9 was taken from the Septuagint.

What is lost in all the discussion of 1 Peter 2:9 and in all the commentaries of the text is the most obvious question: how could Gentile Christians become priests of God? Since most believers were not Jews, the possibility of a Levitical priesthood is out of the question. How could non-Levites act as priests of God even when they only offered spiritual sacrifices (as in 1 Peter 2:5)?

The answer seems to be in the way David’s sons served as priests. Since David, a man from Judah, served as a priest following the tradition established by Melchizedek, king of Jerusalem, David’s sons exercised a “royal priesthood,” a priesthood based on the authority delegated by their father, who was a king.

Jesus, a man from Judah, exercised the priesthood following the tradition established by Melchizedek and continued by his ancestor David. His followers became priests by the authority given to them by their Lord, who was the King of kings.

Both the sons of David and the followers of Christ did not exercise a Levitical priesthood because they were not from the tribe of Levi or from the family of Aaron. They exercised a “royal priesthood,” the type of priesthood established by Melchizedek who was the king and priest of Jerusalem and adopted by David when he became the leader of the Canaanite population who continued to live in Jerusalem after the conquest of the city.

Reference: Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing House, 1990.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: 2 Peter 2:9, David, Melchizedek, Priesthood, Priests

Dr. Robert Webber - In Memoriam

“Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints” (Psalm 116:15).

My friend and colleague Bob Webber died on Friday, April 27, 2007 after an 8 month battle with pancreatic cancer. He fought a valiant fight and died with great dignity. A public memorial service in the Chicago area is being planned and details about the service will be posted on Northern Seminary’s website: www.seminary.edu.

Bob Webber was a special person. He was a committed Christian who was dedicated to the renewal of the church and to Christian ministry. Bob Webber was one of the foremost authorities on worship renewal. He conducted workshops and seminars on worship and spirituality for almost every major denomination in North America through the Institute in Worship Studies located in Florida, which he founded in 1995.

In the Fall of 2006, Bob brought together a group of scholars, pastors, and church leaders to prepare a “Call to an Ancient Evangelical Future.” The result of this work was a document that challenged the next generation of evangelical leaders “to make God’s story known through the rediscovery of the church’s mission in its worship, spirituality, and life in the world.”

Bob was a prolific writer. Every year when Northern Seminary awarded the annual Faculty Award for Publication, Bob would always have two (sometimes more than two) books that qualified for the award. His vast knowledge of theology and church history was evident in his lectures and presentations. He was a great teacher.

Bob was a good friend and a great colleague. His sense of humor and his friendly attitude was manifest throughout his years of service here at Northern. To know Bob was to appreciate his friendliness, his openness, and his enthusiasm for the church. Those of us who knew Bob and worked with him will greatly miss his joy for the spiritual and his zest for life.

“Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.” “Blessed indeed,” says the Spirit, “because they will rest from their work since their good deeds will follow them” (Revelation 14:13).

Claude F. Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Bob Webber, Northern Seminary

Young Muslims Murder 3 Christians in Turkey

The Baptist Press is reporting that Muslim extremists have killed three Christians in Turkey:

ISTANBUL (BP)--In a gruesome assault against Turkey's tiny Christian community, five young Muslim Turks entered a Christian publishing office in the southeastern province of Malatya April 18 and slit the throats of the three Protestant Christians present.

Read the Baptist Press news report by clicking here.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Christians, Muslim, Persecution

Einstein and Faith

Time.com has published an excerpt of the book Einstein by Walter Isaacson. The book will be published Simon & Schuster, Inc. This excerpt of the book deals with Einstein’s view of God and his perspective on religion. What follows is a small portion taken from the excerpt:

To what extent are you influenced by Christianity? "As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."

You accept the historical existence of Jesus? "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

Do you believe in God? "I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."

Next week I will write a post dealing with Einstein’s view of God. My post will be based on the information Isaacson provides on Einstein’s religious views.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Atheism, Einstein, Faith, Religion

From Scrolls to Books: The Video

How do you stop using scrolls and learn how to use books?

To learn, click here.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Books, Scrolls

David, History, and Evangelicals: A Response to Chris Heard

My fellow blogger Chris Heard has written a post, "David’s sons and the history of biblical ideas," in which he addresses some of the issues I raised in my post on the priesthood of David’s sons, Rereading 2 Samuel 8:18: “David’s Sons Were Priests.” Some of the issues Chris raised deserve some kind of response. It is impossible to provide a detailed response to every one of these issues, but I hope with this response to Chris’ post, to clarify some of my views and address some of Chris’ concerns.

The Historical Issue

Chris wrote: As Claude wrote, the Chronicler apparently found it unacceptable for non-Levites to be priests, but, in Claude’s words, “Since David performed some priestly functions in the Jerusalem cult, it is very possible that he delegated some of his priestly responsibilities to his sons.” Claude apparently means this as a historical point about David, which I judge a tenuous point to make.

There is much debate about the historicity of David and some events related to his kingdom. Those who are familiar with the history of the debate also know that scholars on both sides of the issue cannot come to a definite conclusion.

Notwithstanding the unwillingness of scholars and archaeologists to accept the reality that David is mentioned in extra-biblical sources, archaeological discoveries make references to the “house of David,” clearly indicating that David was a historical figure. The name of David appears in the Tell Dan stela, in the Mesha stela, and possibly in the Karnak monument commemorating Shishak’s conquest of cities in Canaan.

If David conquered Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made it his city, and even if Jerusalem was a small city, it is possible that he would become king or leader of the Jebusite city and assume some of the duties associated with the religious life of the city. I have no problem in accepting the historical reality of “the house of David.

"From “Priests" to "First Ministers"

Chris wrote: we are basically presented with the dilemma that either the author of the smallest original unit containing 2 Sam 8:18, as well as (presumably) the tradents who preserved that unit through to canonical expression, either (a) did not know anything about the Priestly Torah’s insistence that only Levites may be priests, or (b) were not bothered enough by David’s flouting of these commandments to rewrite the text or to insert an editorial comment on the impropriety, or (c) they themselves were not happy with this situation but thought it represented historical reality, and they were historically sensitive enough to realize that times change.

Chris’ statement may reflect a lack of understanding of the theology behind the Deuteronomistic history (even though I doubt it). The books of 1 and 2 Samuel are part of what is known as the Deuteronomistic history and were probably the work of the people involved in Josiah’s reform c. 622 B.C.

In their book The Bible Unearthed, Finkelstein and Silberman wrote (p. 14) that “archeology has provided enough evidence to support a new contention that the historical core of the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History was substantially shaped in the seventh century B.C.E.”

Finkelstein and Silberman also wrote (p. 14): “And we shall side with the scholars who argue that the Deuteronomistic History was compiled, in the main, in the time of King Josiah, aiming to provide an ideological validation for particular political ambition and religious reforms.”

The book of Deuteronomy, which is the initial chapter of the Deuteronomistic History, makes a clear distinction between the Levitical Priests and the Levites. The writers of the Deuteronomic History were well aware that there were priests who were not Levites. In fact, at the instigation of the reformers, Josiah “deposed the idolatrous priests whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense in the high places of Judah and round about Jerusalem” (2 Kings 23:5).

So, the historian knew about priests who were not Levites. It is the Deuteronomist who insisted that all priests be Levitical priests. Chris’ statement, that the writers of 2 Samuel 8:18 “did not know anything about the Priestly Torah’s insistence that only Levites may be priests” is incorrect because it was the writer or writers of 2 Samuel 8:18 and the whole Deuteronomistic history who insisted that all priests must be Levitical Priests.

The tradition initiated in the seventh century continued in the post-exilic period and the Chronicler was very adamant that only descendants from the tribe of Levi could become priests. In saying this, I am avoiding the controversy between the Zadokites and the Aaronites, an issue that, I believe, is very evident in the book of Chronicles.

The Dictation Theory

Chris wrote: Many on the conservative/evangelical end of Christendom apply to the Bible a Qur’anic model of inspiration, resulting in the idea that God basically wrote the Bible by means of dictation to human secretaries.

I am surprised that Chris could make such a statement. His statement that evangelicals believe in the dictation theory is mind-boggling. The statement shows that Chris may not have a clear understanding of the evangelical movement. The fact is that only a minority of fundamentalist Christians would accept dictation theory. Many conservatives and evangelicals are not fundamentalists and they reject the dictation theory.

I hope he is not including me among those who believe in the dictation theory. If Chris has been reading some of my posts, he should know by now that I reject any view that can be classified as dictation theory. I believe in the inspiration of Scriptures but I reject any aspect of the dictation theory.

Chris’ Conclusions

At the end of his post, Chris wrote: By implication, it seems that the restriction of the priesthood to the Levites did not occur in some pre-monarchical wilderness experience, real or imagined, but sometime relatively late in the monarchy or after it. The whole thing has implications for the authorship and provenance of the Torah and of the book of Samuel.

First, I never said that “the restriction of the priesthood to the Levites occurred in some pre-monarchical wilderness experience.” To the contrary, I inferred in my post that the restriction was the work of the Chronicler. What I did not say in the post was that I believe the restriction originated at the time of Josiah’s reform.

Second, I never implied in my post that the Torah was the work of Moses or that the book of Samuel was written by Samuel himself or even written in the early monarchy. Maybe if I had given more detailed information in my post, Chris would have had a better understanding of my own position.

Now, let me clarify what I tried to convey in my post. First, I believe that David and his sons exercised some form of priestly duties by virtue of having conquered Jerusalem from the Jebusites. Yes, I believe in a historical David and I believe that there was a “house of David.”

Second, I believe that with the Deuteronomic reform the cultus was centralized in Jerusalem and that all non-Levitical priests were removed from official duty and that in the seventh century, restrictions were established on who could serve as priests.

Third, in the post-exilic period, the Chronicler made an attempt at eliminating the reference that David’s sons served as priests in Jerusalem because during his days only Levites could serve as priests.

I hope these clarifications will give Chris a better understanding on where I stand on these issues.

Reference: Israel Finkelstein and Neil A. Silberman, The Bible Unearthed. New York: The Free Press, 2001.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: David, Deuteronomic History, Evangelicals, Priests

Reginald H. Fuller - 1915-2007

Reginald Fuller, an influential New Testament scholar of his generation, died on April 4. The following obituary, written by Douglas Martin was published on April 14, 2007 in The New York Times:

Reginald H. Fuller, a prominent British-born New Testament scholar who used his knowledge of Hebrew and Greek to hunt for the historical Jesus and his fluency in German to debate the nuances with theologians, died on April 4 in Richmond, Va. He was 92.

The cause was complications of surgery for a broken hip, said the Very Rev. Martha J. Horne, dean and president of the Virginia Theological Seminary, where Dr. Fuller taught for many years.

In addition to expounding on his biblical criticism in about 20 books, Dr. Fuller translated works by the German pastor and theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was executed in a concentration camp in 1945, accused of having had a role in a plot to kill Hitler. Dr. Fuller helped translate the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible and wrote books on liturgical priorities and theology.

He also was a practicing Anglican priest for most of his adult life.

"I’ve tried to combine an honestly critical approach to the Bible and the New Testament with a firm commitment to the orthodox teachings of the church,” he said in an interview with The Richmond Times-Dispatch in 2001. “There’s always a tension between these things, but one has to live in that tension.”

In his long scholarly career, Dr. Fuller dissected the Bible, which he saw as a series of books and teaching traditions with multifarious layers. His interest lay not in archaeology, psychology, philosophy and other disciplines that are now part of Bible scholarship, but in the sacred text itself.

This emphasis grew out of the year he spent in Germany after graduating from Cambridge in 1937. He studied the critical analysis being done by German Bible scholars, who saw the Resurrection and biblical miracles as mythological.

Dr. Fuller did not always read the Bible literally either, but he read it carefully. In an interview with The Los Angeles Times in 1988, he disputed the concept of an actual corporeal Resurrection. He said the Greek word “appeared” that Paul used to describe Jesus’ visits after his crucifixion was the same word used elsewhere for visionary experiences.

Dr. Fuller nonetheless differed with German theologians like Rudolf Bultmann, who dismissed the Resurrection as a myth concocted by the early church. His counterargument was that Jesus’ actual message, the coming of the Kingdom, as uncovered by critical Bible study, was convincingly and accurately echoed by early Christians. This placed Dr. Fuller in the scholarly camp called “neo-orthodox.”

Hal Taussig, visiting professor of New Testament at Union Theological Seminary in New York, said Dr. Fuller’s views were a credible response to the influential Germans. In subsequent decades, American scholars further challenged the German stance and today are often seen to be leading the scholarly quest for the historical Jesus, though in ways different from Dr. Fuller’s.
But his was a first step. Dr. Fuller “established a critical distance on German scholarship so American scholarship could stand on its own,” Dr. Taussig said.

James A. Sanders, a leading scholar of the Dead Sea Scrolls, said Dr. Fuller also connected the Old and New Testaments at a time when the trend was to see them as separate. He and G. Ernest Wright did this in “The Book of the Acts of God: Christian Scholarship Interprets the Bible” (1957), which Dr. Sanders said represented “good solid mid-20th-century thinking.”

Other works by Dr. Fuller included “Interpreting the Miracles” (1963), which discussed biblical miracles, and “A Critical Introduction to the New Testament” (1966), which was a standard text in the United States and Britain.

Reginald Horace Fuller was born in Horsham, England, on March 24, 1915. After graduating from Queens College at Cambridge, he studied at the University of Tübingen in Germany. He returned to England and was ordained an Anglican deacon in 1940 and a priest in 1941.

He was a curate, or a vicar’s assistant, in England from 1940 to 1950, and lectured at the University of Birmingham for the latter half of that decade. From 1950 to 1955, he taught Hebrew at St. David’s College in Lampeter, Wales.

In 1955, he became a professor of New Testament at Seabury-Western Theological Seminary in Evanston, Ill. He taught at Union and at the Virginia Theological Seminary, from which he formally retired in 1985.

Dr. Fuller is survived by his wife, the former Ilse Barda; his daughters, Caroline Sloat of Pomfret, Conn., and Sally Fuller of Northampton, Mass.; four grandchildren; and five great-grandsons.

Ms. Sloat said Dr. Fuller believed that the Bible must be proclaimed every Sunday. On March 25, the day he suffered the fall that eventually led to his death, he taught a Sunday school class on the Resurrection.

R.I.P.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Credit: Photo courtesy of The New York Times

Tag: Reginald Fuller

James 5:16 and the Internet

James 5:16 exhorts believers: “confess your sins to each other.” For years, believers followed this teaching, affirming the importance of confession of sins. In the Catholic Church confession of sins is made in private; individuals comes before a priest and privately confess their sins.

In this new century, the church is confronted with something new and different: more and more, confession is being made on the Web and before the whole world. According an article published in Christian Today, more Christians are publicly confessing their sins on the Web.

The following is an excerpt of the article published by Christian Today:

Confessionals in the Catholic Church have seen less foot traffic over the past several decades. Much of that traffic, it seems, has moved to anonymous online confessionals.

DailyConfession.com receives hundreds of anonymous confessions and over 1 million hits each day. The website tells visitors to confess their sins but it doesn't necessarily provide the peace and the forgiveness that a person would find in the church.

Although it categorises confessions by the 10 commandments, it's a secular forum. And while some are serious confessions, a lot of confessors reveal "kooky-weird" habits.

Bobby Gruenewald, pastor and innovation leader at LifeChurch.tv - an evangelical multi-site church with an average weekly attendance of 18,000 - believes people keep secrets because they feel no one else could understand why they did what they did.

Gruenewald was part of a team of people at Life Church that launched MySecret.tv - an anonymous confessions website. Originally intended for its church members, MySecret.tv became widely popular outside the church after launching last August and now has about 6,000 confessions.

Although some Christians are critical of the online confessional, with some expressing concern of voyeurism, MySecret.tv encourages online visitors not only to be prayerful when reading other people's confessions, but to make their own confession a prayer.

This trend reveals that people feel the need to confess their sins. But, instead of finding a
minister or a trusting friend, people are looking for the anonymity the Internet offers. People are desperate for God’s forgiveness and pardon but universal confession on the Internet does not mean that divine forgiveness is assured.

Confession of sins is necessary to our reconciliation with God and with one another. However, an universal audience does not translate into intimacy with God. People cannot just Google forgiveness and find it.

I have a theory why people confess their sins on the Web: I believe people are afraid to approach God and confess their sins. If this is the reason, they should not be afraid, God is there for them. As the Psalmist said:

"I confessed my sins and told them all to the Lord. I said: 'I’ll tell the Lord each one of my sins.' Then the Lord forgave me and took away all my guilt" (Psalm 32:5).

Confessing ours sins to God is better than confessing them to the world, because it is only God’s forgiveness that counts.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Confession, Forgiveness

Best Blogs about Biblical Studies

My friend, Airton Jose da Silva from Observatorio Biblico has created a list of the best blogs dealing with biblical studies. This is a good list that introduces some of the best bibliobloggers in the Internet.

Visit his selection by clicking here: Best Blogs about Biblical Studies

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

From New York to Paris

What is the fastest way to get from New York to Paris, France?

I doubt that many people know the best way to get there. He is the answer:

1. Go to google.com

2. Click on Maps

3. Click on Get Directions

4. Write in From: New York, New York to Paris, France

5.. Click on Get Directions

6. Follow direction but make sure that you read line #23.

Bon Voyage.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tag: Travel

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

Last week, in my post on “Jesus: A High Priest After the Order of Melchizedek,” I wrote that after David conquered Jerusalem and made the city the capital of his government, he “incorporated the original inhabitants of Jerusalem into the population of Israel and became their king.”

I also wrote that David became a priest of the people who lived in Jerusalem, “not because he was a Levite, but because he continued the tradition established by Melchizedek.” Then I concluded: “Melchizedek now becomes a type of the Davidic king. The descendants of David will be kings and they will be priests; this is clearly expressed in 2 Samuel 8:18: ‘and David’s sons were priests.’”

The statement in 2 Samuel 8:18 that “David’s sons were priests” is very controversial and even the translations disagree on how to translate the word kohanim (“priests”) in this section of the verse.

The following translations translate the word kohanim in 2 Samuel 8:18 as “priests”:

The Bible in Basic English (BBE), the English Standard Version (ESV), the New American Bible (NAB), the New English Translation (NET), the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB), the Revised Standard Version (RSV), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), the Jewish Publication Society (TNK), the New English Bible (NEB), and the Today’s New International Version (TNIV).

Other translations are not willing to accept that David’s sons were priests. Instead, they reinterpret the word and say that David’s sons were his advisors. These are the ways the word kohanim is translated:

“Chief ministers”: the American Standard Version (ASV), the Jewish Publication Society (JPS), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), and the New King James Version (NKJV).

“Chief officials”: the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB).

“Chief rulers”: the King James Version (KJV), the Revised Webster Bible (RWB), and the Geneva Bible (GNV).

“Princes”: the Douay-Rheims Bible (DRB).

“Royal advisers”: the New International Version ( NIV).

“Priestly leaders”: the New Living Translation ( NLT).

“Princes of the court”: the Septuagint ( LXX).

In defense of the translations of kohanim as “chief rulers” or “royal advisors,” some commentators acknowledge that the word “kohen” means “priest,” but that in early Israel the word was also used to designate a royal minister or a person who advised the king.

Keil (p. 369), in order to justify translating the word kohanim as “confidants,” cites 1 Kings 4:5, where Zabud, Nathan’s son, is a kohen (“priest”) and “the king’s friend,” that is, the king’s confidential advisor..

Most of the translations that say that David’s sons were advisors base their translations on the interpretation offered by the Chronicler in 1 Chronicles 18:17 where David’s sons are called “the chief officials in the service of the king.” This description of the office occupied by David’s sons reflects the post-exilic perspective of the Chronicler, where only Levites could serve as priests. Thus, the designation of David’s sons as priests was unacceptable to the Chronicler.

Many English translations follow the Chronicler’s unwillingness to acknowledge that individuals who were not Levites could become priests. Since the Chronicler does not use the word “priests” but calls the sons of David “chief officials at the king’s side” (NIV), many English translations follow the reading of the Chronicler.

But, as P. Kyle McCarter, Jr. (p. 255) concluded:

“Almost all critics, therefore, have agreed that the readings of I Chron 18:17 and the versions in II Sam 8:18 are interpretive paraphrases of the reading of MT by scribes who considered it impossible that there should be non-Levitical priests.”

In conclusion, it is better to translate the word kohanim as “priests” rather than “royal advisors.” Since David performed some priestly functions in the Jerusalem cult, it is very possible that he delegated some of his priestly responsibilities to his sons.

References:

C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary of the Books of Samuel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950.

P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., II Samuel. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1984.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: David, Priests, Translations

Hendel’s Messiah: An Anti-Judaism Oratorio?

Michael Marissen, in a very interesting article titled “Unsettling History of That Joyous ‘Hallelujah’” published in The New York Times on April 8, 2007, reviews Hendel’s Messiah and concludes that the oratorio is a veiled attack on the Jews and Judaism.

Marissen’s understanding of the Messiah is completely contrary to the traditional interpretation that it has received in the past. According to him, the Messiah was not written for Christmas but to celebrate the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in A.D. 70.

In addition, he proposes that the Messiah is an anti-Jewish polemic and that it was written to demonstrate that the Jews were the enemies of Christians. Below are a few excerpts from the article:

So "Messiah" lovers may be surprised to learn that the work was meant not for Christmas but for Lent, and that the "Hallelujah" chorus was designed not to honor the birth or resurrection of Jesus but to celebrate the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple in A.D. 70. For most Christians in Handel's day, this horrible event was construed as divine retribution on Judaism for its failure to accept Jesus as God's promised Messiah.

"Messiah" does exactly this, culminating in the "Hallelujah" chorus. At Scene 6 in Part 2 the oratorio features passages from Psalm 2 of the Old Testament set as a series of antagonistic movements that precede excerpts from the New Testament's Book of Revelation set as the triumphant "Hallelujah" chorus: type and antitype, prophecy and fulfillment.

The bass aria that opens Scene 6 asks, "Why do the nations so furiously rage together, and why do the people imagine a vain thing?" But in the King James Bible and the Book of Common Prayer, the passage, Psalm 2:1, reads not "nations" but "heathen." Why the difference, and where does it come from?

Jennens took his reading from Henry Hammond, the great 17th-century Anglican biblical scholar, whose extended and fiercely erudite commentary on Psalm 2 suggests the advantage of "nations" over "heathen": "Nations" can readily include the Jews. In the 18th century no one would have uncritically used the King James Bible and the Book of Common Prayer's word "heathen" for Jews or Judaism. Even children would have known this, from the famous hymn writer Isaac Watts's wildly popular "Divine Songs for the Use of Children," which includes the verse "Lord, I ascribe it to thy Grace, /And not to Chance, as others do, /That I was born of Christian race, /And not a Heathen or a Jew."

Later in Scene 6, at the tenor aria, Jennens skips to Psalm 2:9, "Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron." His excision of verses 5 through 8 makes the violent language in "Thou shalt break them" refer to the Jesus-rejecting Jews, because without the intervening verses, "them" refers to "the nations" (including the Jews) and "the people" (the Jews) of the bass aria, rather than the gentiles referred to in the missing Verse 8.

I have to confess that this is the first time I have read that the Messiah is an anti-Jewish polemic. It is possible that this deconstructionist reading of the Messiah may reflect a bias on the part of the reviewer. These days everyone finds fault with the past.

What Marissen has done is to challenge me to study the issue more carefully and evaluate the evidence for or against his views. Until then, I will listen to the Messiah with the same amazement I had the first time I heard it.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Antisemitism, Hendel, Messiah, Psalm 2

The Hyksos in Egypt

The National Geographic has published a news report announcing that Egyptian archaeologists have found documents that date to the time of the Hyksos in Egypt. The following is an excerpt of the article:

Egyptian archaeologists have announced that they have unearthed traces of solidified lava on the northern coast of Sinai that date to around 1500 B.C.-supporting accounts that ancient Egyptian settlements were buried by a massive volcanic eruption in the Mediterranean, they say.

The archaeological team, led by Mohamed Abdel Maqsoud of Egypt's Supreme Council for Antiquities, found houses, military structures, and tombs encased in ash, along with fragments of pumice, near the ancient Egyptian fortress of Tharo, on the Horus military road. Tharo is located close to El Qantara, where the Nile Delta meets the Sinai peninsula.

The new find seems to confirm accounts from ancient artwork and documents that recount the destruction of coastal cities in Egypt and Palestine during the 15th dynasty (1650-1550 B.C.), when foreigners known as the Hyksos ruled Egypt.

The archaeological mission also found a fort with four mud-brick towers dating to Egypt's 18th dynasty (around 1550 to 1307 B.C.).

In addition, an Egyptian archaeologist said:

The fort corresponded to reliefs found in the ancient temple of Karnak in Luxor. The sculptures describe Egypt's strategy to defend its eastern borders against future invasions by the Hyksos, who are thought to have been Semitic nomads from Syria and Palestine.

"It's very significant," said Salima Ikram, a professor of Egyptology at the American University in Cairo. "There are only a limited number of sites linked to the Hyksos." Ikram added that the site also contains some of the earliest known remains of horses found in Egypt.

The Hyksos occupy a very important place in the history of Egypt and Canaan in the 18th century B.C. According to John Bright (59-65), around 1710 B.C., the Hyksos, an Asiatic people, conquered Egypt and established their own government that included Canaan and southern Syria. They established their capital in the city of Avaris in the Nile Delta.

The name “Hyksos” means “foreign chiefs.” This name was given by the Egyptians to the invading people, who later adopted the title to designate the foreign elements who ruled Egypt for about 150 years.

The Hyksos were able to conquer Egypt because of their advanced weapons, which included the war chariot and the laminated bow. Many of the names associated with the Hyksos are Semitic. For this reason, some scholars have said that some of the ancestors of the Israelites who entered Egypt may have been associated with the Hyksos.

If Joseph entered Egypt during the time the Hyksos occupied the land, then, the settlement of Jacob and his family in the land of Goshen was made possible because of the affinity between the two groups. The Hyksos domination of Egypt came to an end when Ahmose I in 1570 B.C. attacked Avaris and expelled the Hyksos from Egypt.

Ahmose established the Eighteenth Dynasty, a dynasty that lasted through the end of the Amarna period, a time when, according to the book of Exodus, Israel was in Egypt.

Thus, the discovery of a site that confirms the presence of the Hyksos in Egypt is significant because it helps archaeologists shed light on a very debatable period in the history of Israel.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Archaeology, Exodus, Hyksos,

Non-Aaronite Priesthood

Darrell Pursiful has written a post “Melchizedekian (and Other) Priesthood” in response to my post on Jesus and Melchizedek. In his post, Darrell introduces several ideas worthy of consideration. In this post, I would like to join Darrell in his discussion of non-Aaronite priesthood and pursue some of his suggestions.

In his post, Darrell wrote: “There are, in fact, several hints in the Bible about a non-Aaronic priesthood associated with the tribe of Judah in general and the Davidic line in particular.” As an example of a non-Aaronite priesthood, he mentions the Levite in Judges 17:7. He wrote:

In Judges 17:7, there is mention of a Judahite who was also a Levite: “Now there was a young man of Bethlehem in Judah, of the clan of Judah. He was a Levite residing there.”

The key factor in this verse is the expression “residing there.” These words mean that the Levite was a ger, a resident alien who was living in Judah. Thus, the text may be understood in two different ways:

First, since Levites did not possess land of their own, they would live within the territory of other tribes as resident aliens (gerim). For this reason, the Levite mentioned in Judges 17:7 may not have been a man from the tribe of Judah, but a man from the tribe of Levi who was living in Judah.

Second, it is possible that a Levite was a person who dedicated himself to the service of Yahweh irrespective of tribe affiliation. Thus, a Levite could be from the tribe of Judah, as Judges 17:7 indicates. Samuel functioned as a priest and later is called a Levite even though his family are said to be Ephraimites (1 Samuel 1:1).

Since Micah, a man from Ephraim, appointed his son to be a priest of his idol (Judges 17:5), it is very possible that one did not have to be a Levite to be a priest. These references to Levites may indicate that in pre-monarchic Israel, the Levites and the tribe of Levi were two different groups.

Another point Darrell raises in his post is the issue of David’s priesthood. Darrell quotes 2 Samuel 6:17, a text which declares that “David offered burnt offerings and offerings of well-being before the Lord.” The evidence that David acted as a priest is found in the next verse, 2 Samuel 6:18: “When David had finished offering the burnt offerings and the offerings of well-being, he blessed the people in the name of the Lord of hosts.” In Israel, one of the functions of the priests was to bless the people (Numbers 6:22-27).

Solomon also acted as a priest. During the dedication of the temple, Solomon prayed before the altar of the Lord (1 Kings 8:54), blessed the people (v. 55) and offered peace offerings before the Lord (v. 63). In the post-exilic period, at the time when only priests could offer sacrifices before the Lord, Solomon’s altar becomes a platform (2 Chronicles 6:13) and the mention of the peace offerings is removed from 2 Chronicles 7:5.

On the significance of the omission of the words that said that Solomon “sacrificed peace offerings to the Lord” in 2 Chronicles 7:5, Gray (232, note a) wrote:

“This phrase of MT is omitted from the parallel version in II Chron. 7:5 in accordance with the view of the late priestly writer that sacrifice was the monopoly of the priests.”

So far Darrell and I agree. There were priests in Israel who were not descendants of Aaron. Levites from different tribes exercised the duties of the priesthood. In addition, before the Josianic reforms, other people could offer sacrifice, and Elijah is a good example (1 Kings 18:30-38).

Darrell and I differ on two small points: I do not think there is evidence of numerous examples of intermarriage between the descendants of David and the descendants of Aaron. It is true that the case of Joseph and Mary in the New Testament could be cited as an example, but off hand, I do not remember many examples in the Old Testament.

Second, I do not believe the Rechabites were priests. The Rechabites were the descendants of Jehonadab, the son of Rechab (2 Kings 10:15-17). The Rechabites had made a commitment to keep the desert way of life because they believed that was the best way to worship the God of Israel. Although their practices were similar to the Nazarites, the Rechabites lived nomadic lives that were characterized by the rejection of sedentary life. Jeremiah used the Rechabites as an example of a people dedicated to the Lord.

As for Zechariah 6:13, that is a problematic text that deserves a post all of its own. I may return to the issues raised by Zechariah 6:13 at a later time.

I want to thank Darrell for his very stimulating post.

Reference:

John Gray, I & II Kings. Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1970).

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Aaron, David, Levites, Priesthood, Rechabite

Ethiopian Evangelist Beaten to Death

Baptist Press is announcing that an Ethiopian evangelist was beaten to death by Wahabbi extremists. The following is the press release issued by Baptist Press:

An evangelist was beaten to death by militant Muslims as he and two female assistants were witnessing on a street in southeast Ethiopia, March 26. The evangelist, named Tedase, is the second believer in Ethiopia who has been attacked and killed by Wahabbi Muslims in the past six months.

The evangelism team was walking by a Wahabbi mosque in the town of Jimma as a group of men were coming out, according to International Christian Concern, a human rights group based in Washington, D.C. The Muslims chased the three, and the female co-workers escaped, but the men caught Tedase, pulled him into the mosque, and beat him to death.

Wahabbi Islam is an extremist sect that originated in Saudi Arabia and exerts great influence in Muslim dominated areas like Jimma, where local authorities are almost exclusively Muslim, the ICC said. Just six months ago, extremist Muslims burned down several churches and Christian homes, displacing as many as 2,000 Christians.

The ICC encourages concerned individuals to contact the Ethiopian embassy in Washington, D.C., to ask for an investigation of the murder. The embassy's phone number is (202)364-1200, e-mail info@ethiopianembassy.org.


Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Christianity, Church, Persectution

The Minister's Covenant

A few days ago, I received a catalog announcing the sale of a book, The Valley of Vision. This book is a collection of Puritan prayers and devotions, edited by Arthus Bennet. The book was published also with an audio edition containing 7 CDs.

The publisher, The Banner of Truth, offers an audio sample on line. The sample, “The Valley of Vision,” is a beautiful prayer that shows the devotion and piety of those who composed these prayers. Click here to hear the sample audio.

The following is the daily devotion for Monday, 09, April 2007:

The Minister's Covenant

Lord Jesus,
True God, everlasting Life,
Redeemer of sinners,
I give my body, soul, intellect, will, affections
to thee.

I call the day, sun,
earth, trees, stones,
wind, rain, frost, snow,
my home, bed, table, food,
books, drink, clothes,
to witness that I come to thee for rest of soul
from the thunders of guilt
and dread of eternity.

Grant me
a circumcised heart that I may love thee,
a right spirit that I may seek thy glory,
a principle within which thou wilt own,
an interest in the blood that cleanses,
the righteousness that justifies,
the redemption that delivers,
that I may not be found a hypocrite on
Judgment Day.

For the sake of thy cruel death take my time,
strength, gifts, talents, usefulness, piety,
which in full purpose of heart I consecrate to thee.
Let not sin find a place in my heart to becloud my
vision,
and may no foolish act wither my gifts.

Preserve me from the falls by which others stumble,
that thy name may not be blasphemed or wounded,
that thy people may not be grieved,
that thine enemies may not be hardened,
that my peace may not be injured.

Give me a heart full of love to thyself and to others.
Let me discover in this life what I am before thee,
that I may not find myself another character
hereafter.

Prepare me for death,
that I may not die after long affliction or suddenly,
but after short illness, with no confusion or disorder,
and a quiet discharge in peace, with adieu
to brethren.

Let not my days end like lumber in a house,
but give me a silent removing from one world
to another.
Inscribe these petitions in thy book,
present them to thy Father,
Set thine Amen to them, as I do on my part
of the covenant.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Covenant, Devotion, Ministry, Prayer

Jesus: A High Priest After the Order of Melchizedek

Several days ago, a friend asked me to explain the statement in the book of Hebrews that Jesus is “a priest after the order of Melchizedek.” This designation of Jesus as a priest after the order of Melchizedek has baffled many Christians and has produced several interesting interpretations. The purpose of this post is to study the meaning of the statement in Hebrews that Jesus is a priest after the order of Melchizedek.

Five times in the New Testament, Jesus is called, directly or indirectly, “a priest after the order of Melchizedek” (Hebrews 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:11, 17). The text in Hebrews 5:5-10 presents two examples of the designation of Jesus as a high priest:

So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you"; as he says also in another place, "You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek." In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 5:5-10 ESV).

The proper understanding of Jesus as Melchizedek must begin with Genesis 14:18, where Melchizedek is introduced for the first time: “And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High.”

Melchizedek met Abraham when the patriarch returned from the pursuit of Chedorlaomer and the other Mesopotamian kings who had taken Lot as a prisoner of war. In the text, Melchizedek is introduced as the priest of God Most High and as the king of Salem. Salem is an ancient name for Jerusalem: “His abode has been established in Salem, his dwelling place in Zion” (Psalm 76:2).

The identification of Melchizedek has been highly debated in the history of the church. Jewish tradition has identified Melchizedek with Shem, the son of Noah who, after the chronology in Genesis, survived the flood and lived at a time when Abraham was alive and was his contemporary for a hundred years.

Christian tradition has proposed different interpretations to identify who Melchizedek was. Origen said that Melchizedek was an angel. Others have proposed that he was the Holy Spirit in human form.

Many Christians, ancient and contemporary, have said that this is a classical example of a Christophany in the Old Testament, that is, Melchizedek was Jesus Christ himself, who appeared to Abraham in human form.

The concept of Christophany should be rejected because it contradicts the statement in the book of Hebrews that Jesus was designated a priest after the order of Melchizedek. If Melchizedek was Christ then how could Christ become a priest in the likeness of Melchizedek?

Another view is that Melchizedek was a type of Christ. The typological interpretation suggests that the priesthood of Melchizedek was a type of Christ’s priesthood. As Melchizedek was a priest of the Most High God, so was Jesus. As Melchizedek was a king, so was Jesus. Both Melchizedek and Jesus were royal priests. In the persons of Melchizedek and Jesus the offices of priest and king were combined.

The text in Genesis indicates that Melchizedek was a Canaanite king who reigned in Jerusalem before the city was conquered by David and became the capital of the united monarchy (2 Samuel 5:6-10).

As king of Jerusalem, Melchizedek combined the offices of priest and king into his official duties. The combination of priesthood and kingship into the office of the king was not uncommon in the Ancient Near East. For instance, Ethbaal king of the Sidonians and the father of Jezebel, was also the priest of Astarte (1 Kings 16:31).

So, when David conquered Jerusalem and made the city the capital of his empire, he called the stronghold of Zion “The City of David” (2 Kings 5:9). David incorporated the original inhabitants of Jerusalem into the population of Israel and became their king.

Since the king of Jerusalem was also a priest, David became a priest, not because he was a Levite, but because he continued the tradition established by Melchizedek. This is what Psalm 110:4 is trying to communicate. The words of verse 4 are addressed to the king: “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.’”

Melchizedek now becomes a type of the Davidic king. The descendants of David will be king and they will be priests; this is clearly expressed in 2 Samuel 8:18: “and David's sons were priests.”

The priesthood of Melchizedek is used by the author of the book of Hebrews to prove the claim that Jesus Christ was a high priest. In Israel, the high priest had to be a Levite and a descendant of Aaron. Since Jesus was from the tribe of Judah and a descendant of David, it was impossible for the writer of Hebrews to say that Jesus was a high priest.

But, this is precisely what the author of Hebrews is emphasizing in his writing. As a high priest, Jesus presented a sacrifice for sins. Jesus Christ was the “great high priest who has passed through the heavens” (Hebrews 4:14). Jesus Christ was the high priest who opened the way for people to approach the throne of grace (the Mercy Seat) with confidence so that they “may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need” (Hebrews 4:15-16).

The writer of the book of Hebrews then is saying that Jesus became a high priest, not because he was a descendant of Aaron. Jesus because a high priest after the order of Melchizedek because he was a descendant of David and a legitimate successor of the legacy left by David when he became king of Jerusalem.

By saying that Jesus became a priest after the order of Melchizedek, the author of Hebrews is emphasizing that Jesus “become a priest, not according to a legal requirement concerning bodily descent” (Hebrews 7:16-17), but because of the promise made to David that he and his descendants would become priests forever after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4).

The erroneous view that Genesis 14:18 is a Christophany or that Melchizedek was an angel or even the Holy Spirit makes it difficult for the reader to understand the meaning of the statement that Jesus Christ is a high priest “after the order of Melchizedek.”

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Hebrews 7, Jesus, Melchizedek, High Priest

The Exodus from Egypt: A New Explanation

According to an article published in The New York Times, Dr. Zahi Hawass, Egypt’s chief archaeologist, has declared that the parting of the Red Sea and the Exodus of Israel from Egypt is a myth. According to him, the Exodus did not happen because there is no historical evidence for the presence of Israel in Egypt.

People who follow the archaeological debate about the historicity of the Exodus and even of the facts about early Israel know that many archaeologists and biblical scholars deny the events mentioned in the book of Exodus because there is no evidence for the pharaoh and his army being killed during the exodus.

However, another Egyptian archaeologist has developed a theory that may explain the reason no evidence has been found in archaeological discoveries for the defeat of the pharaoh of Egypt. What follows is an excerpt of the article published in The New York Times:

Recently, diggers found evidence of lava from a volcano in the Mediterranean Sea that erupted in 1500 B.C. and is believed to have killed 35,000 people and wiped out villages in Egypt, Palestine and the Arabian Peninsula, officials here said. The same diggers found evidence of a military fort with four rectangular towers, now considered the oldest fort on the Horus military road.

But nothing was showing up that might help prove the Old Testament story of Moses and the Israelites fleeing Egypt, or wandering in the desert. Dr. Hawass said he was not surprised, given the lack of archaeological evidence to date. But even scientists can find room to hold on to beliefs.

Dr. Mohamed Abdel-Maqsoud, the head of the excavation, seemed to sense that such a conclusion might disappoint some. People always have doubts until something is discovered to confirm it, he noted.

Then he offered another theory, one that he said he drew from modern Egypt.

“A pharaoh drowned and a whole army was killed,” he said recounting the portion of the story that holds that God parted the Red Sea to allow the Israelites to escape, then closed the waters on the pursuing army.

“This is a crisis for Egypt, and Egyptians do not document their crises.”

The Egyptians and most nations of the past did not document their crises. This statement could explain why there is no record of pharaoh and his army drowning in the sea.

Come to think of it, this is an old explanation.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Exodus, Moses, Red Sea, Zahi Hawass

Still at Work

As most of you know, and as I have mentioned in a previous post, for the past three years I have been directing the Self-Study process at Northern Baptist Seminary. Every ten years, educational institutions must go through a process of re-accreditation. Accreditation is crucial to an educational institution. Without accreditation an educational institution cannot grant valid degrees.

A Self-Study process must include a study of the life and mission of the institution. According to the Mission Statement of Northern Baptist Seminary, our mission “is to educate leaders for the churches who will be personally whole and spiritually mature, biblically grounded and theologically competent, pastoral, evangelistic and prophetic.”

The Self-Study must study of the life and work of the seminary to ascertain whether we are accomplishing our educational mission. This study has taken three long years. As the director of the Self-Study, I had to develop and implement a plan to evaluate the work of the seminary for the past ten years.

Since last summer, I have been reading and evaluating the reports that were prepared for the Self-Study. In December 2006 I began writing the Self-Study report. This work has taken all my available time and more. In addition to my work on the Self-Study, I had to teach and continue my work as pastor of Trinity Baptist Church in Chicago.

I am glad to report that the main work of writing the Self-Study report is finished. Last week I wrote the summary and the conclusion of the report. The result of this work was a report of almost 200 pages, typed single space, with dozens of footnotes and dozens of appendixes.

My work on the Self-Study has forced me to stop posting to my blog from time to time. For the past week or so, I have been unable to post because I had to complete the report. I also have not been able to answer several emails and comments I received to my posts. For this, I apologize to my readers.

This coming Wednesday the members of the faculty will discuss the written Self-Study report. Until then, I will be unable to post again. After the process is finished, I will resume posting to my blog.

Maybe the words of the Preacher apply to this situation. He said: “There's no end to the publishing of books, and constant study wears you out so you're no good for anything else” (Ecclesiastes 12:12).

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tag: Blogging