Jehu: His Leadership and Legacy - Part 2

This is the second part on my study of Jehu, king of Israel. This study is divided into two parts. Part one, “Jehu: His Leadership and Legacy,” was an overview of the political and religious crises that prompted the prophetic community of the Northern Kingdom to take action and plan the overthrow of the Omrides. The second part of this study, the present post, deals with Jehu’s anointing and the actions he took in order to eliminate Jezebel and the members of Ahab’s family.

Jehu’s Anointing

The anointing of Jehu took place while he was with the army at Ramoth Gilead in preparation for war with Hazael, king of Syria (2 Kings 9:1-13). At that time Elisha gave orders to one of his servants to anoint Jehu as king. Elisha’s messenger came to where Jehu was meeting with his officers; he took Jehu apart, poured oil on his head and anointed him king over the Lord’s people Israel (2 Kings 9:6). This statement serves to identify Israel as God’s people, in contradistinction to those who worshiped Baal. Then, in the name of Elisha, the messenger gave Jehu the order to utterly destroy the house of Ahab to avenge the innocent blood shed by Ahab and Jezebel. After the prophet left, Jehu declared to his fellow officers what had just happened. The officers hastily spread their garments for Jehu to stand on, blew the trumpets and proclaimed: Jehu is king (9:7).

Jehu began to carry out his mission immediately. He set off, together with a group of his horsemen, to Jezreel, where Joram (also known as Jehoram), a grandson of Ahab, king of Israel, was recovering from a wound that he had received in battle (2 Kings 9:17-24). When Joram was told that Jehu was driving his chariot “furiously,” Joram sent messengers to Jehu, asking, “Is it peace?” When the messengers did not return, Joram, together with his cousin Ahaziah, king of Judah, went to meet Jehu. When Joram asked, “Is it peace?” Jehu responded by denouncing the sins of Jezebel. At this Joram cried: “It is treason, Ahaziah.” When Joram turned to escape, Jehu drew his bow and shot Joram in the back and the arrow pierced his heart and Joram died on his chariot. Jehu commanded his aide Bidkar to take Joram’s body and throw it in the field that belonged to Naboth. This action fulfilled the oracle of Elijah concerning the death of Ahab’s house.

Jehu then proceeded to kill Ahaziah, king of Judah, the son of Athaliah (9:27-29). When Ahaziah saw that Jehu had killed Joram, Ahaziah fled but Jehu’s men caught up with him and wounded him (2 Kings 9:27). Ahaziah once again escaped, but he died in Megiddo of his wounds. Ahaziah’s body was taken to Jerusalem by his aides, where he was buried in the tomb of the kings.

The Death of Ahab’s Family

After having killed Joram and Ahaziah, Jehu went to Jezreel to deal with Jezebel, the queen-mother. Jezebel, when told what had happened, prepared to meet her death with dignity: she painted her eyes, arranged her hair, and put on her royal garments. Her defiance in the face of death is seen in her insulting words to Jehu from the window of the royal residence: “Have you come in peace, you Zimri, murderer of your master?” Jezebel’s words refer to the murderous actions of Zimri who usurped the throne by killing the family of Baasha. Without an answer, Jehu asked some palace officials to throw Jezebel down from the window. When Jezebel’s body hit the ground, her blood splattered on the wall and on the horses. Jehu drove his horses and his chariots over her body, and then, he entered the palace to eat. Later, when his men went to bury Jezebel, they only found her skull, her feet, and her hands. The rest of her body was eaten by dogs. When Jehu was told what had happened, he recollected the words of the Lord to Elijah that dogs would eat the body of Jezebel in Jezreel (2 Kings 9:36-37; see 1 Kings 21:23).

Jehu continued the purge of Ahab’s family by sending letters to guardians of the seventy sons and grandsons of Ahab who lived in Samaria. His asked them to select one of the descendants of Ahab, make him king and be prepared to fight and defend the kingdom. Terrified of the possible outcome of a resistence, the rulers of the cities and the guardians of the royal heirs submitted themselves to Jehu. Jehu then sent a second letter asking for the heads of Ahab’s descendants. The city officials decapitated the descendants of Ahab, put their heads in baskets and sent them to Jehu at Jezreel. The heads were then pilled up in two heaps and placed at the city gate until morning. The next day Jehu began to kill those associated with Ahab: “So Jehu killed everyone in Jezreel who remained of the house of Ahab, as well as all his chief men, his close friends, his priests, leaving him no survivors” (2 Kings 10:11).

After eliminating the family of Ahab, Jehu set out to go to Samaria. On his way to Samaria he met forty-two relatives of Ahaziah, all members of the royal house of Judah who were going to Jezreel to visit Jezebel and the members of her family. Jehu ordered his men to kill them and place their bodies in a cistern near Beth Eked (2 Kings 10:12-14).

Before Jehu reached Samaria, he met Jehonadab, the son of Rechab. Jehonadab was the leader of the Rechabites, a group of people who remained faithful to the old traditions of the religion of Yahweh. Because of the Rechabites’s commitment of loyalty to Yahweh, Jehu invited Jehonadab to join him in his quest to purify the religion of Yahweh. Jehonadab accepted the invitation and together they went to Samaria to confront the worshipers of Baal. When Jehu arrived in Samaria, he killed all the relatives of Ahab who were living in Samaria.

Once in Samaria, Jehu proceeded to eliminate the worshipers of Baal. Pretending to be a follower of Baal, Jehu organized a great celebration for Baal. Jehu invited the priests, prophets, and worshipers of Baal from throughout the land of Israel. When all the worshipers were inside the temple of Baal, Jehu gave orders to his soldiers, eighty of them, to kill all those related to the worship of Baal. The worshipers of Baal were slaughtered, the temple of Baal was torn down, the sacred objects were destroyed, and Jehu desecrated the holy place by making the temple a latrine for common use.

God’s Judgment on Jehu

God honored the work of Jehu by promising him that his dynasty would last four generations: “Because you have done well in accomplishing what is right in my eyes and have done to the house of Ahab all I had in mind to do, your descendants will sit on the throne of Israel to the fourth generation” (2 Kings 10:30). Yet, because of Jehu’s excessive shedding of blood, and the excessive violence in accomplishing his mission, Yahweh began to bring his judgment upon the house of Jehu and upon the kingdom of Israel (10:32). The rest of Jehu’s reign is occupied with his wars against Syria. He also had to deal with the loss of territory on the east side of the Jordan. In addition, Jehu became a vassal of Assyria, and had to present himself before Shalmaneser III, king of Assyria, with his tribute. The indignity of this submission is that Shalmaneser calls Jehu “the son of Omri.” However, the most profound word of judgment upon Jehu’s selfish ambition and violent nature comes from God himself: “I will soon punish the house of Jehu for the massacre at Jezreel” (Hosea 1:4). The indignity of Jehu paying a tribute to the king of Assyria to secure the throne that God had given to him demonstrates that in doing the work of God, one is responsible and accountable for the work done.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Elisha, Jehu, Jezebel,

Jehu: His Leadership and Legacy

Today, I begin a study of Jehu, king of Israel. This study will be divided into two parts. Part one will study the political and religious crises that prompted the prophetic community of the Northern Kingdom to take action and plan the overthrow of the Omrides. The second part of this study will deal with Jehu’s anointing and the actions he took in order to eliminate Jezebel and the members of Ahab’s family.

Jehu, the son of Nimshi, was the tenth king of Israel and he reigned twenty-eight years (843-815 B.C.). He came to the throne of the Northern Kingdom with prophetic approval in order to overthrow the dynasty of Omri. Jehu appears as the son of Nimshi in 1 Kings 19:16 and 2 Kings 9:20 and as the son of Jehoshaphat in 2 Kings 9:2, 14. It has been suggested that Nimshi was Jehu’s grandfather. In his youth Jehu served as a chariot officer in Ahab’s army. He was one of the two witnesses that heard the prophetic sentence against Ahab and his house (2 Kings 9:25-26; see 1 Kings 21:17-19, 28-29).

The selection of Jehu to be king of Israel was made by God himself. God’s will was revealed to Elijah and fulfilled by Elisha. Jehu became king of Israel at a crucial time in the life of the nation. The events that preceded his accession to the throne provide the proper background for understanding his anointing and the bloodshed that followed his coronation.

Political Confusion in Israel

When the United Kingdom divided after the death of Solomon, both Judah and Israel went their different ways. The Northern Kingdom (Israel) was plagued by internal instability. The Southern Kingdom (Judah) remained somewhat stable because the Davidic dynasty survived throughout its history. However, Israel's throne changed occupants many times, often by violence, in the first fifty years of its history. The accession of Omri to the throne brought stability and prosperity to Israel.

Omri's rise to power was preceded by much political unrest in Israel (see 1 Kings 16:8-22). Elah, the son of Baasha reigned two years in Israel (877-876 B.C.). Elah was an incompetent king who did not have the support of his people. While the army of Israel was fighting against the Philistines (16:16), Elah, "while drinking himself drunk" (16:9), was killed by Zimri in the house of one of his officers. The death of Elah was seen as a judgment upon the house of Baasha, in accordance with the words of the prophet Jehu, the son of Hanani (16:12-13).

Israel’s next king, Zimri (876 B.C.), was king of Israel for seven days. Zimri was the commander of half of the chariots of the army of Elah. Zimri killed the royal family and assumed the throne of Israel (16:11-12). When the news of the death of the royal family reached the Israelite army, the troops on the field proclaimed their commander, Omri, as king of Israel. After the death of Zimri, Israel was divided between two pretenders to the throne, Omri and Tibni, the son of Ginath (16:21-22). Nothing is known about Omri's family. The fact that Omri's family is not mentioned may indicate that he probably was a non-Israelite, who was serving the king as commander of the army.

The Reign of Omri

After he became king of Israel, Omri’s first priority was the consolidation of his kingdom. One of Omri’s major political decisions was to establish an alliance with Ittobaal, king of Tyre. This alliance was sealed by the marriage of Ahab, Omri's son, to Jezebel, the daughter of the king of Tyre (1 Kings 16:31). The treaty with Tyre brought economic prosperity to Israel. The royal treasury enjoyed considerable prosperity because of its trade with Tyre. Many people in Israel benefitted from the active commerce between Israel and Phoenicia. Omri also made an alliance with Judah. This alliance was sealed by the marriage of Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, to Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat (2 Kings 8:18).

Internally, Omri established a new capital for Israel (1 Kings 16:24). Omri bought a site from Shemer to build his capital and named it Samaria (16:24). Omri paid two talents of silver for Samaria. Thus Samaria became royal property and Omri had total control over the city.

Omri introduced a system of taxation to maintain the government. The economic condition in Israel created a class of rich people who controlled the means of production and the wealth of the nation. The situation of the poor became worse. In the days of the prophet Elisha, many poor people had to mortgage their land and sell their children and themselves to pay their debt and the taxes owed to the state and to creditors (see 2 Kings 4:1). This economic hardship upon the poor people of Israel was caused by the system of taxation which became necessary in order to maintain a large military complex and to fund royal projects in Samaria and throughout the nation. The oppressive economic policies of the Omrides brought much dissatisfaction with the policies of Omri and Ahab and created a desire for change.

The Religious Crisis in Israel

The issue that forced the community to conspire against the house of Omri and Ahab was the religious crisis in Israel brought about by the missionary program established by Jezebel. Jezebel was a worshiper of Baal Melqart and Asherah, the god and goddess of fertility. When Jezebel came to live in Samaria, she brought her religious beliefs with her. Working together as husband and wife, Ahab and Jezebel built a temple for Baal in Samaria (1 Kings 18:32). They also built an asherah (18:33). The asherah was a wooden pole which was a symbol of the fertility goddess Asherah, the consort of Baal. In addition, Jezebel brought in 450 prophets of Baal and 400 prophets of Asherah, all paid by the court (1 Kings 18:19). As part of her effort to establish Baal as the official religion of the land, Jezebel persecuted and killed many of the prophets and followers of Yahweh (1 Kings 18:4).

Elijah the prophet was commissioned by God to oppose the religious aspirations of Jezebel. Elijah began his ministry proclaiming a drought. Baal was held by his worshipers to be the god who controlled the rain (1 Kings 17:1). The announcement of the drought intended to show that Yahweh was the true God and the one who controlled the rain.

In order to promote the religion of Israel, Elijah challenged the prophets of Baal to a contest on Mt. Carmel (1 Kings 18). The purpose of this contest was twofold. First, Elijah wanted to demonstrate who the true God was. Second, Elijah called on the people to follow either Yahweh or Baal When Yahweh powerfully demonstrated that he was able to answer the prayer of his prophet, the people recognized that Yahweh was the true God, (18:39), and as a result Elijah killed the prophets of Baal (18: 40).

When Jezebel heard what Elijah had done to the prophets of Baal, Jezebel threatened to kill Elijah, who for safety, fled to hide himself on Mt. Horeb (or Sinai). On Horeb God revealed himself to Elijah and gave him a plan to overthrow the dynasty of Omri (19:15-18): Elijah was to anoint Hazael as king of Syria, Jehu as king over Israel, and Elisha to be his successor. Elijah returned to Israel to carry out God’s wishes; he was only able to carry out the third of God’s commands; it was left to Elisha to carry out the other two.

Next Post: Jehu and His Legacy

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Elijah, Elisha, Jehu, Jezebel, Omri

A Good Advice for Preachers

If you are a preacher, here is a good advice for you:

Read Jeremiah 23:30 first, then read this story.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Preaching, Sermon

Joseph and the Seven Years of Famine

A group of Israeli scholars are reporting they have solved the biblical mystery of how Joseph preserved Egypt’s unsealed grain stores against invading pests during the seven year of famine and saved the Egyptian people from mass starvation. According to the news report,

The secret lies in the burnt corpse of a 3,500 year old beetle found in a grain of wheat claim researchers (Kislev, Simhoni and Melamed) from the laboratory for archaeological botany in the Life Sciences Department at Bar Ilan University, Haaretz reported on Monday.

The beetle belongs to the highly destructive Rhyzopetha dominica species, commonly known as the Lesser Grain Borer, which invades wheat and barley stored in silos after it has been harvested in the field.

Joseph knew of the Lesser Grain Borer and the beetle's amazing reproductive ability, the team inferred from a biblical description in Genesis 41:48-49. To reduce its migration he isolated the grain harvested in each locality and prevented batches being transferred from one city and community to another.

Sand was also added to the stored grain as a simple method of pest control known and practiced in ancient Egypt, the researchers say.

Sand crystals absorb moisture in the granary and prevent the grain from rotting and decaying. But they scratch away at the beetle's hard body shell causing it to dry up and die.

If this research is confirmed by other independent studies, it will help explaining some of Joseph’s work in saving the lives of the people of Egypt and the members of his family.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Archaeology, Egypt, Joseph

The Laws of Nature and the Existence of God

This is the fourth post evaluating Antony Flew’s journey toward God. I recommend that you read my first post, "From Atheism to Theism: A Journey Toward God," before you read this post. The second post was titled “The Origin of Life and the Existence of God.” The third post was titled “The Big Bang Theory and the Existence of God.” I will conclude my review of Antony Flew’s book There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: Harper Collins Publisher, 2007) with a postscript in which I will address the issues raised by an article published in the New York Times Magazine in which the author is critical of the way Flew's book was written.

In my last two posts I presented the reasons Antony Flew changed his mind and came to accept that there is a God.

The first reason Flew presented for changing his mind came out of a question that became the basis for his journey back to God. Flew asked: “How did life as a phenomenon originate from nonlife?” That question led him to evaluate recent works on the origin of life and to his amazement, he discovered that the evidence “pointed to the activity of a creative Intelligence” (p. 74).

The second reason that made Flew embark on his pilgrimage toward theism was the issue “that philosophers handed over to cosmologists: How did the universe, by which we mean all that is physical, come into existence?” This issue led Flew to a reformulation of the old cosmological argument for the existence of God.

The third reason that led Flew to re-evaluate his views on atheism was the constancy of the laws of nature. Flew asked: “How did the laws of nature come to be?” By laws of nature Flew means the regularity and symmetry that exist in the universe. He wrote: “The important point is not merely that there are regularities in nature, but that these regularities are mathematically precise, universal and ‘tied together.’” This, according to Flew (p. 96), is the question scientists from Newton to Einstein have been asking and their answer was one and the same: it was “the Mind of God.” Or, as Stephen Hawkins said in his book, A Brief History of Time, the day human beings discover the reason the universe exists that will be their greatest accomplishment, for then they will know “the mind of God.”

This question is in a sense, a reformulation of the classical argument from design for the existence of God. The argument from design states that the apparent order in nature requires the existence of a Designer. Although Hume, Kant, and Flew himself have done much to discredit the argument from design, Flew said (p. 95) that “when correctly formulated, this argument constitutes a persuasive case for the existence of God.”

Summing up his views about God and his creation, Flew summarized his views as follows (p. 88):

“I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence. I believe that this universe’s intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originated in a divine Source.”

Flew said that his acknowledgment of the existence of God was not a paradigm shift but of his acceptance of the Socratic principle that “we must follow the argument wherever it leads.”

Several developments in modern science have contributed to Flew’s reversal of attitude toward God. According to Flew (p. 88-89), science makes three important contributions to the declarations of the existence of God. The first declaration is “the fact that nature obeys laws.” The second is the origin of life and the existence of “intelligently organized and purpose driven beings.” Third, Flew wrote, is “the very existence of nature.”

Flew argues with Dawkins about whether Einstein believed in God. Flew quotes Einstein: “I want to know how God created this world . . . I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.”

Flew states that scientists use the laws of nature without ever asking where these laws come from. In fact, they accept as an act of faith that the laws of nature will be consistent and that they are able to understand them.

These laws are not made by the scientists but are present in the universe. According to Flew (p. 108), these laws “are written in a cosmic code that scientists must crack in order to reveal the message.” This message is nature’s message or God’s message but it is not a message created by human beings.

Thus, according to Flew, the regularity of the laws of the universe demands the existence of God for it is God who created these laws and imposed symmetry and regularity in the universe.

Flew concludes (p. 112) that those scientist who point to God in order to explain the regularity of the laws of nature “propound a vision of reality that emerges from the conceptual heart of modern science and imposes itself on the rational mind. It is a vision that I personally find compelling and irrefutable.”

The book contains two appendices. The first appendix, “‘The New Atheism’: A Critical Appraisal of Dawkins, Dennett, Wolpert, Harris, and Stenger,” was written by Roy Abraham Varghese, the co-author of the book. This appendix is a critical assessment of the arguments presented in recent books in defense of atheism.

The second appendix is titled “The Self-Revelation of God in Human History: A Dialogue on Jesus with N. T. Wright.” In this appendix Flew and Wright have a dialogue about Jesus, his existence, his incarnation, and his resurrection. Wright’s presentation is a clear and forceful exposition of the basic tenets of the Christian faith.

I enjoyed reading the book. Those who read it will understand how a famous atheist changed his mind.

Reference:

Antony Flew, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. New York: Harper Collins Publisher, 2007.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary


Tags: Tags: Antony Flew, Atheism, God, Theism

The Big Bang Theory and the Existence of God

This is the third post evaluating Antony Flew's journey toward God. I recommend that you read my first post, "From Atheism to Theism: A Journey Toward God," before you read this post. The second post was titled “The Origin of Life and the Existence of God.”

Antony Flew was known as one of the most articulate atheists of the twentieth century. His books and articles influenced a generation of atheists who today still use the argument he developed in his book The Presumption of Atheism. That argument states that, in a discussion between a believer and an atheist, atheism should be the default position and that the burden of proof rests with those who believe in God.

In May 2004, Flew made a public announcement that he had changed his mind and had come to the conclusion that he was no longer an atheist. The reason Flew changed his mind was because recent scientific discoveries made in the latter part of the twentieth century tend to affirm the existence of God.

In my last post I presented the first reason Antony Flew changed his mind and came to accept that there is a God.

The first reason Flew presented for changing his mind came out of a question that became the basis for his journey back to God. Flew asked: “How did life as a phenomenon originate from nonlife?” That question led him to evaluate recent works on the origin of life and to his amazement, he discovered that the evidence “pointed to the activity of a creative Intelligence” (p. 74).

Another question that made him embark on his pilgrimage toward theism was the issue “that philosophers handed over to cosmologists: How did the universe, by which we mean all that is physical, come into existence?”

The answer that Flew provides is a reformulation of the old cosmological argument for the existence of God.

Those who deny the cosmological argument affirm that anything than can be known about the origin of life, the nature of the universe, and the laws of nature can be known without admitting the possibility of the existence of a transcendent reality beyond human understanding.

Flew himself was highly involved in attacking the cosmological argument. He even agreed and supported David Hume’s critique of the cosmological argument for the existence of God. However, Flew said (p. 135) that “most of my discussions were carried on independent of developments in modern cosmology. In fact, my two main antitheological books were written long before either the development of the big-bang cosmology or the introduction of the fine-tuning argument from physical constants.”


The cosmology that came out of the big bang theory made an impact on Flew’s understanding of the creation of the universe. With the development of the big bang cosmology in the early 1980s, Flew realized that cosmologists were providing “a scientific proof of what St. Thomas Aquinas contended could not be proved philosophically; namely, that the universe had a beginning” (p. 135).

The more Flew thought about the implications of the big bang the more he began to realize that the words of Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” were true (by the way, this is the only biblical text quoted in Flew’s book). As an atheist, Flew believed the universe did not have a beginning and as long as he believed that, there was no reason to ask what caused the universe to come into being.

However, the development of the big bang cosmology changed the situation. Flew wrote: “If the universe had a beginning [with the big bang], it became entirely sensible, almost inevitable, to ask what produced this beginning.”

Flew’s discovery of God has come through an understanding of the structure of the universe. This structure, according to Flew, is a map that leads to the discovery of the Divine. He wrote (p. 155): “I have followed the argument where it has led me. And it has led me to accept the existence of a self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient Being.”

Many Christians reject the big bang theory. For instance, Jason Lisle, writing in Answers Magazine said that the big bang theory is based on naturalism. He wrote:

Since the philosophy of naturalism does not allow for anything beyond nature, a naturalist would insist that the universe was created by the kinds of processes currently operating within it. The big bang is based on this critical assumption; that is, the big bang model attempts to describe the formation of the entire universe by processes currently operating within the universe. Stars, planets, and galaxies are all said to have formed "naturalistically"-by the laws of nature currently in operation today.

The big bang theory, however, had a different impact on Flew because the theory suggested that the universe had a beginning and if the universe had a beginning then the next question was what or who produced the big bang.

Flew predicted that in trying to explain the big bang, atheists would say that what produced the big bang was beyond human understanding. On the other hand, Flew said that believers would “welcome the big-bang cosmology as tending to confirm their prior belief that ‘in the beginning’ the universe was created by God” (p. 136).

The big bang theory shows that the universe had a beginning. A universe without a beginning is a universe without God. Those who affirm that the universe was eternal do not need a God to create it. But, since the universe began with the big bang 14 billion years ago, then what produced the big bang that caused the universe to come into existence? Since space, matter, and time are part of the created order, then the cause for the big bang must be immaterial, it must not be limited by space, and it must not be bound in time.

Because Flew was faithful to the Socratic principle of following the evidence wherever it may lead, it is clear that the cosmology that came out of the big bang theory and the existence of a fine tuned universe set him on a journey that eventually led him to accept the existence of God.

Reference:

Antony Flew, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. New York: Harper Collins Publisher, 2007.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Antony Flew, Atheism,

The Bible and Earth Day

Last year, on Tuesday, February 13, 2007, I wrote the following post:

The Bible and Global Warming

People who say politicians do not know their Bible are not aware of all the biblical quotations we find in speeches published by the distinguished men and women who serve in Congress. At times, politicians like to act like preachers. Politicians like to quote the Bible to prove their argument is solid.

Take the case of the Honorable Rep. Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat from California and the Speaker of the House. In a speech before the House Science and Technology Committee Hearing, she spoke on the pressing issue of global warming.

Speaker Pelosi said that the future of our children and grandchildren is in our hands. She spoke about the need to act now in order to save our planet. To prove her point, that government needs to act now and tackle "humanity's greatest challenge," she quoted the Bible. She said:

The Bible tells us in the Old Testament, "To minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us."

These are touching words. This biblical admonition is very important and highly relevant to the pressing issue of global warming.

Too bad this biblical admonition is not in the Old Testament.

According to CNSNews, today, “Earth Day,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi invoked God and the Bible in her Earth Day Declaration. According to the CNSNews news report:

Pelosi explained what the “New Direction” Democrats are doing to fix the problem, then concluded by quoting from the Bible:

"The Bible tells us in the Old Testament, 'To minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.' On this Earth Day, and every day, let us honor the earth and our future generations with a commitment to fight climate change."

This is the same quote she used before and I have to say, her quote is still not in the Old Testament.

Joe Osborne at House of Leoj did a Google search on Nancy Pelosi’s use of the Old Testament and here is what Joe wrote:

So I searched Google for the direct quotation. It turns out that this is not the first time she has used this "quote". The Pelosi Op-ed on Dr. Martin Luther King Day contains the same words. I also found it in an October 2007 interview with Tavis Smiley. (No, I am not making that name up!) She even used the same quote in her Earth Day 2007 statement, the budget bill in 2005 debate and, evidently, her Christmas 2005 statement.

It seems that when people do not have much to say, they recycle their words over and over again as Nancy Pelosi has done. It is easy to make up what the Bible says when you don't know what the Bible says. Pelosi’s words say a lot about her knowledge of the Old Testament.

Somebody should tell the Speaker that her words of wisdom from the Bible are not in the Bible.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Earth Day, Nancy Pelosi

The Origin of Life and the Existence of God

This is the second post evaluating Antony Flew’s journey toward God. I recommend that you read my first post, “From Atheism to Theism: A Journey Toward God,” before you read this post. The first post has been updated in light of Charles Halton’s comment. In his comment, Charles included a link to an article published in the New York Times Magazine in which the author is critical of the way Flew’s book was written. Visit my post and read Charles’ comment. I will address the charges made by the author of that article in a postscript after I finish my review of Flew’s book.

When Antony Flew changed his mind and declared that he now accepted the existence of God, the atheist world reacted with anger and disdain. As one of the endorsers of his book wrote: “When Antony Flew, in the spirit of free-thinking, followed the evidence where he thought it led, namely, to theism, he was roundly denounced by supposed free-thinkers in the severest of terms. He had, it seemed, committed the unpardonable sin.”

Now, Flew has written a book, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: Harper Collins Publisher, 2007), in which he recounts his journey from atheism to theism. However, the negative reaction to his book is expected to be fierce, primarily by those who deny the existence of God. As another endorser of the book wrote: “His colleagues in the church of fundamentalist atheism will be scandalized by his story, but believers will be greatly encouraged, and earnest seekers will find much in Flew’s journey to illuminate their own path toward the truth.”

Before he turned to theism, Flew wrote many books and articles that reflected his anti-theism belief, including God and Philosophy and The Presumption of Atheism. One of his most influential works was his lecture “Theology and Falsification” in which he said that any religious statement can be made significant by the many qualifications made concerning that statement.

In The Presumption of Atheism, Flew established a principle that is still used by atheists today. This principle states that in any discussion about the existence of God, the burden of proof rests on those who are defending the reality of God and that atheism should be the default position in the discussion.

Flew gives three reasons he abandoned atheism and accepted the reality of the existence of God. The most amazing thing is that Flew became aware of the existence of God not because he read the Bible or he went to church. According to Flew, he became convinced of the existence of God because of the implications of recent scientific discoveries.

His statement contradicts what atheists proclaim with vigor, that is, that science proves conclusively that God does not exist. Flew’s statement also goes contrary to the popular view among some Christians that science and faith are mutually exclusive.

The first reason Flew presented for changing his mind was that “recent work on the origin of life pointed to the activity of a creative Intelligence” (p. 74). One question that became the basis for his journey back to God was “How did life as a phenomenon originate from nonlife?” According to Flew (pp. 90-91), “the origin of life cannot be explained if you start with matter alone.” This declaration was made at a symposium in May 2004 in New York. In that symposium Flew declared that he believed in the existence of God because recent studies reveal that the complex DNA arrangements required to produce life demand that a creative Intelligence be involved.

When Flew was asked if studies on the origin of life pointed to a creative Intelligence, he answered (p. 75):

Yes, I now think it does . . . almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together. It’s the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence.

One idea that has been presented to defend the possibility that life can arise by change is what is called “the monkey theorem.” This view says if a large number of monkeys are put together in front a computer keyboard and type randomly, given enough time, the monkeys eventually will compose a Shakespearean sonnet. Or, as the Wikipedia puts it:

The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a particular chosen text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.

Flew wrote in his book (pp. 75-78) that Gerald Schroeder, an Israeli scientist and the author of The Science of God, has presented a point-by-point refutation of the “monkey theorem.”



According to Schroeder, an experiment was conducted by the British National Council of Arts in which six monkeys were placed in front of a computer and allowed to type randomly. After one month the monkeys typed fifty pages but did not produce a single word.

Schroeder observed that in English there are two one-letter words: “I” and “a.” An “I” or an “a” is a word if there is a space before and after the word. After calculating the number of letters and characters in the keyboard, Schroeder concluded that the likelihood for a monkey to write a one-letter word is 1 chance out of 27,000.

Schroeder then applied the same principle to a Shakespearean sonnet. The sonnet “Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?” has 488 letters in the sonnet. Since there are 26 letters in the alphabet, then the likelihood of writing the 488 letters of the sonnet in its proper order is 26 multiplied by itself 488 times. The result would be the number 10 to the 690th power. The number is so immensely large that it could never be reached.

When this number is compared with the millions of arrangements that are needed to produce life, the possibility that life arose by chance is minimal. Flew then concluded (p. 78): “If the theorem won’t work for a single sonnet, then of course it’s simply absurd to suggest that the more elaborate feat of the origin of life could have been achieved by chance.”

Of course, Flew was highly criticized for his views. Richard Dawkins said that Flew was appealing to a “god of the gaps.” Flew, however, presents a good defense of his position (pp. 123-132). In defending his view, Flew quotes physiologist George Wald who said that “we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance” (p. 131). And then Flew concludes:

The only satisfactory explanation for the origin of such “end-directed, self-replicating” life as we see on earth is an infinitely intelligent Mind.

To that I say: Amen!

Reference:

Antony Flew, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. New York: Harper Collins Publisher, 2007.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Antony Flew, Atheism, God, Theism

From Atheism to Theism: A Journey Toward God

While I was away relaxing in my “traveler’s lodging place,” I had the opportunity to read Antony Flew’s latest book, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: Harper Collins Publisher, 2007). The book is a personal account of how Flew, an atheist for more than fifty years, came to accept the fact that God exists.

On May 2004, at a symposium at New York University, Antony Flew, one of the better known atheists of the twentieth century, surprised the atheist world by announcing that, after much study and reflection, he has now come to accept the existence of God.

The news of Flew’s change of mind caught many people by surprise since he had spent most of his life defending atheism and writing books and articles debunking the religious arguments for the existence of God. As a philosopher, Flew had accepted the Socratic principle of following the evidence wherever it may lead. Faithful to this principle, Flew announced that recent developments in science has led him to the conclusion that the evidence affirms the existence of God.

Antony Flew was born into a Christian family. His father was a minister in the Wesleyan Methodist Church and taught New Testament at the Methodist theological college in Cambridge. Flew attended Kingswood School, a school founded by John Wesley dedicated to the education of the sons of Methodist pastors. Flew began his studies at Kingswood as a believer and by the time he graduated, he was an atheist.

Many factors contributed to Flew’s journey toward atheism. In his book, There Is a God, Flew wrote (p. 13):

“I have said in some of my later atheist writings that I reached the conclusion about the nonexistence of God much too quickly, much too easily, and for what later seemed to me wrong reasons.”

One of the reasons that led Flew to embrace atheism at the age of fifteen was the problem of evil. Flew gave two reasons why the problem of evil affirms the nonexistence of God:

1. The problem of evil was a decisive disproof of the existence of an all-good, all-powerful God.

2. The “free will defense” did not relieve the Creator of responsibility for the manifest ills of creation.

Later on in his academic life, Flew called these two reasons “juvenile insistencies.”

Many atheists point to the problem of evil in the world as one evidence to deny the existence of God. Flew is aware that evil and suffering are real. Flew deals with both. He wrote (p. 156):

“Certainly, the existence of evil and suffering must be faced. However, philosophically speaking, that is a separate issue from the question of God’s existence. From the existence of nature, we arrive at the ground of its existence. Nature may have its imperfections, but this says nothing as to whether it had an ultimate Source. Thus, the existence of God does not depend on the existence of warranted or unwarranted evil.”

Three scientific issues contributed to Flew’s pilgrimage back to theism. Flew formulates these three issues in the form of questions (p. 91):

1. How did the laws of nature come to be?
2. How did life as a phenomenon originate from nonlife?
3. How did the universe, by which we mean all that is physical, come into existence?

In the next few days, I will be examining how Flew deals with these three questions. His pilgrimage toward theism and his search of the evidence for God’s existence will become a challenge for those who still affirm that there is no God. I will be examining Flew’s quest with the following posts:

1. The Origin of Life and the Existence of God.

2. The Big Bang Theory and the Existence of God.

3. The Laws of Nature and the Existence of God.

The three posts will present a brief overview of how Flew tries to answer the three questions that lingered in his mind even when he was defending atheism. In the end, these posts will be an invitation to readers to read the book and join Flew in his journey toward God.

Reference:

Antony Flew, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. New York: Harper Collins Publisher, 2007.

UPDATE

After you finish reading this post, read Charles Halton’s comment and follow the link he provides to an article published in the New York Times Magazine in which the author is critical of the way Flew’s book was written. In light of Charles’ comment and the charges made by the author of the article, I have decided to write a postscript after I finish my review of Flew’s book and address the charges made in the article.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Next Post: The Origin of Life and the Existence of God

Tags: Antony Flew, Atheism, God, Theism

Expelled: Ben Stein and the Culture of PC Liberalism

L. Brent Bozell III has a good review of Ben Stein’s movie Expelled. He concludes his review by saying:

Everyone should take the opportunity to see "Expelled" — if nothing else, as a bracing antidote to the atheism-friendly culture of PC liberalism. But it's far more than that. It's a spotlight on the arrogance of this movement and its leaders, a spotlight on the choking intolerance of academia, and a spotlight on the ignorance of so many who say so much, yet know so very little.

I have not seen the movie yet, but this review has encouraged me to see it before it comes to DVD.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Ben Stein, Expelled

Pharaoh Seti I

Egypt Information Service is announcing that archaeologists have found the cartouche of King Seti I, second king of the 19th Dynasty (1314-1304 BC). The cartouche was found inside the corridor of the tomb of Seti I in the Valley of the Kings.

Read the news report here.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Archaeology, Egypt, Seti I

Archaeology and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Neil Asher Silberman wrote an article evaluating the “Israeli-Palestinian Cultural Heritage Agreement” that was established between Israeli and Palestinian archaeologists. The purpose of the agreement is to develop a way for both Israelis and Palestinians to resolve conflicts over archaeological sites and artifacts once Israel and the Palestinians agree on the issue of the two states.

Although the agreement is an attempt at protecting the fragile archaeological legacy buried below ancient ruins, Silberman believes that, unless there is an effort to change how Israelis and Palestinians view the role of archaeology, the agreement will fail.

Silberman wrote:

Indeed the very concept of "heritage" is almost necessarily exclusionary, delimiting "our" heritage from "theirs." Israelis tend to see stones, pots and ancient coins as materialized illustrations of a meaningful national narrative that runs from the beginnings of Jewish history to the rise of the State of Israel. For Palestinians, the narrative is one of dispossession, in which archaeological artifacts and sites are not seen as symbols but as alienated possessions, as real and movable property, whose ultimate significance lies in their physical return.

Neat archaeological partition will not work, and compromise arrangements will not further the cause of peace, so long as we refuse to recognize that it is not passionate archaeology that causes the present conflict, but, rather, that it is the other way around.

I believe Silberman is right. The idea of bestowing “exclusive possession of cultural property” has merits but it can create a potential for destruction of vital archaeological information. I just wonder what the Palestinians would do if they found an inscription that said “David slept here.” Would they share that inscription with the world?

I hope the agreement works and that it does not lead to further animosity between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Archaeology, Israel, Palestinians

The Old Testament in the News

People all over the world like to use the Old Testament to illustrate what they write. Here is a sample of what I found in the news today.

From Lahore, Paskistan:

Marx cannot be read with profit in times of plenty. You do not feel his sting. When business is booming and the proletariat can acquire any number of unnecessary gadgets on borrowed money, Marx will sound like a spoilsport, an Old Testament prophet who has blundered into gilded Rome.

I did not know that Old Testament prophets were “spoilsports.” I cannot also recall which Old Testament prophet “blundered into gilded Rome.”

From Lebanon, Pennsylvania:

A letter to the editor accused me of being like an Old Testament prophet, warning of horrible retribution if we do not change our evil ways. To some extent it is true because economists are assigned the unwelcome task of informing people that there is no free lunch.

If this modern Old Testament prophet proclaimed that there was no free lunch he was wrong. His words indicate that he has never read Isaiah 55:1.

From Oxford, England:

According to the poet Lord Byron, the Assyrian came down like a wolf on the fold, although a solo mission might account for why, according to Old Testament war correspondents, that invasion came to a sorry end.

Again, I no not think we could classify Isaiah as “a war correspondent.” Many prophets reported on wars but they were not just mere observers.

From Moultrie, Georgia:

So Mr. Olmstead wants us to live under Old Testament law. Does that mean we can bring back slavery and polygamy? After all, those laws were never repealed in the Bible.

These laws cannot be repealed because they were never enacted in the first place.


From Edinburgh, Scotland:

Old Testament, the prophet Elisha was mocked for his baldness by no fewer than 42 "little children". Rather than get an Asbo, he cursed his tormentors in the name of the Lord.

The reason Elisha did not get an Asbo was probably because he did not know his PC very well.

From Chicago, Illinois:

We know how powerful the Puritan Ethic has been in our country, informing down to this very day views on matters such as human sexuality and other forms of "proper behavior," reflecting the Power of the Old Testament.

But just because many of the moral teachings of the Old Testament are present in our society, this does not mean that the USA is “clearly a Jewish nation.”

From a blog:

"Well, you know how they's always begattin' in the Old Testament.”

I know, and there was begattin’ in the New Testament also.

From another blog:

What's so great about the Old Testament?

Well, it is when you read the Old Testament that you discover the riches contained in the Old Testament. This blogger has discovered the Old Testament. She wrote: “God will often lead me to Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Psalms.” Please, don’t stop there. These are only 3 of the 39 great books of the Old Testament. You should read all of them at least once in your Christian life.

Enjoy reading and studying the Old Testament.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tag: Old Testament

For Sale: Authentic Babylonian Antiquities

Myers University in Cleveland, Ohio is going out of business. The school is selling its assets, including a collection of Babylonian antiquities.

The artifacts for sale include the following:

Two clay jugs, some carved stones and dozens of tablets carved with Sumerian words.

Forty-two neo-Sumerian texts, engraved on tablets that served as early versions of receipts.

An Old Akkadian cylinder seal.

Two Nippur incantation bowls.

Several cone-shaped items that came from outside the palace of Sinkashid, king of Uruk.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Antiquities, Archaeology, Babylon

Gold Coins Found in Egypt

World News is reporting that gold coins of Emperor Valens were found in an excavations in the west part of St. Catherine's monastery in Sinai. According to the news report,

The Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities announced an interesting discovery. Gold coins forged by Roman Emperor Vales were unearthed at the astonishment of archaeologists; these findings represent the first of this kind in the Land of the Pyramids.

The two coins were found during excavations in the west part of St. Catherine's monastery in Sinai. The image represented on the front side of the coins is very similar to that of Valens' and specialists agreed that he is indeed.

Read the news report by clicking here.

Credit: Valens' Gold Coins Image courtesy of World News

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Ancient Coins, Archaeology, Egypt, Numismatic

Legend of the Crystal Skulls

On May 22, 2008 the new Indiana Jones’ movie, “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” will be released. The movie is based on real archaeological artifacts known as crystal skulls that were discovered in the 19th century.



The May/June issue of Archaeology magazine has a good article explaining the mystery of the crystal skulls. The promotional introduction to the article describes the work of Jane MacLaren Walsh, a Smithsonian anthropologist:

Along with superstars like Harrison Ford, Cate Blanchett, and Shia Le Bouf, the newest Indiana Jones movie promises to showcase one of the most enigmatic classes of artifacts known to archaeologists, crystal skulls that first surfaced in the 19th century and that specialists attributed to various "ancient Mesoamerican" cultures. In this article, Smithsonian anthropologist Jane MacLaren Walsh shares her own adventures analyzing the artifacts that inspired Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (in theaters May 22), and details her efforts tracking down a mysterious "obtainer of rare antiquities" who may have held the key to the origin of these exotic objects.

This is a good article. I can’t wait to see the movie next month.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Archaeology, Crystal Skulls, Indiana Jones

A Traveler’s Lodging Place

One thing about being on sabbatical is that you must accomplish the project listed on your sabbatical proposal. I have been on sabbatical since last January working on a book on Jeremiah and prophetic ministry. I have been spending most of my time reading books and articles on Jeremiah. This is the reason I have not been able to write more for the blog.

The prophet Jeremiah said: “O that I had in the desert a traveler’s lodging place, that I might leave my people and go away from them!” (Jeremiah 9:2). I feel sorry for Jeremiah. He was involved in doing something very difficult: he was ministering to a very difficult people. His task was so burdensome that he wished he could find a lodging-place somewhere in the wilderness to rest and recoup from his ordeal.

I am fortunate. I have found a traveler’s lodging place in a remote place in Wisconsin “that I might leave my [family] and go away from them” for awhile. I will be taking several days off from blogging beginning today. I am planning to go to my “traveler’s lodging place” with my books and computer and spend a week reading and doing research on Jeremiah.

I will be back soon.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

A Fifth-Grader v. the Smithsonian

Is fifth-grader Kenton Stufflebeam smarter than the people at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History?

The answer is “yes.”

Read this article and notice the three mistakes made by the people at the Smithsonian.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tag: Smithsonian Museum

Is Jeremiah Wright a Modern Day Prophet?

In a letter to the editor, published in the Louisville Courier-Journal of Louisville, Kentucky, William R. Fox, a retired Diaconal Minister of the United Methodist Church said that Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s pastor, is a modern day prophet. He wrote:

People of all races who yearn for social justice can resonate with the deep anger and grief expressed by Rev. Wright. He is a modern day prophet, in the tradition of Elijah, Isaiah, Hosea, Amos, Jeremiah, and Micah in the Old Testament; and in the tradition of Jesus of Nazareth. Those prophets proclaimed that God intends for us all to use whatever power we possess to serve the good of our neighbor. To answer the question of God put to Cain, "Yes, you are your brother's keeper."

Jesus made this clear in Matthew 25, a chapter headed, "The Judgment of the Nations." According to Jesus, those who wish to worship God do so by feeding the hungry, providing water to the thirsty, welcoming the stranger, clothing the naked, caring for the sick, and visiting the imprisoned.

The Old Testament prophets were much more direct and angry in their judgments on a nation that ignored the needs of the poor and oppressed.

Listen to selected verses from Isaiah Chapter 1: "Ah, sinful nation, people laden with iniquity, offspring who do evil, children who deal corruptly, who have forsaken the Lord, . . . cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow."

Many people may disagree with the political views expressed by Jeremiah Wright or how his views may or may not have influenced the life and political career of Senator Barack Obama, but one thing is certain: Jeremiah Wright’s sermons and ministry have many similarities with the words and ministry of the prophets of the Old Testament.

Many of the prophets of the Old Testament criticized the leaders of the nation because of the way the ruling classes treated the average Israelite. The preaching of Elijah, Elisha, Amos, Micah, Jeremiah, and many of the other prophets was marked by constant confrontation with the powerful men and women who were part of the dominant society. These prophets also preached that every citizen in Israel, rich or poor, had rights given to them by God, rights which the government could not abrogate.

The ministry of Elisha is a classical example of a prophetic denunciation of the political powers in the Northern Kingdom. The story of Elisha in 2 Kings 9 tells how the prophet inspired a revolt against the king. Elisha commanded his servant to anoint Jehu, the commander of the Israelite army, with the intent of deposing King Joram, the son of Ahab and Jezebel, who had adopted the evil policies of his father. The overthrow of Joram was accomplished by a peasant rebellion in which the people of the land overthrew the government in order to establish another government that would be more faithful to the ideals of the covenant and more sensitive to the needs of the poor.

Another prophet who spoke against the evil practices of his society was Micah who preached during the reigns of Jotham (742-735 B.C.), Ahaz (735-715 B.C.), and Hezekiah (715-686 B.C.), kings of Judah. Micah was a rural prophet who spoke on behalf of the common people of Judah. His preaching was focused on the suffering of his fellow citizens. Micah spoke against the plundering of the poor, the oppressing of the defenseless, against the perversion of justice through bribery and dishonest business practices, against violence and bloodshed.

Micah recognized that the leaders of the nation were responsible for providing social justice for all people. But he also recognized that the execution of justice for all would take place when the relationship between leaders and people were ordered according to God’s divine norm. Micah said: “But God has already made it plain how to live, what to do, and what he is looking for in men and women. It’s quite simple: Do what is fair and just to your neighbor, be compassionate and loyal in your love, and live in humble fellowship with your God” (Micah 6:8).

One does not have to agree with Jeremiah Wright’s political views, but there is no doubt that the man is exercising a prophetic ministry. Speaking from a black perspective, he speaks clearly about social issues such as poverty, injustice, the suppression of human rights, crime, and acts of violence. These are the issues that are prone to produce conflicting views and create tension among people who take different positions of these issues.

I believe more ministers today should embrace the call to prophetic ministry. Prophetic ministry is as appropriate today as it was during the days of the prophets of the Old Testament, especially considering the condition of the world in which we live. Why do we need prophets today? Because many of the social problems that existed in the days of the prophets of old are present in our society today.

God said: “In the last days I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy” (Acts 2:17-18).

The day for prophetic ministry has arrived.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Barack Obama, Jeremiah Wright, Prophetic Ministry, Prophets

Barack Obama Goes Old Testament

In a recent post, GOPMOM wrote that she believes Obama has gone Old Testament. Commenting on Obama’s statement that he did not want to see his daughter punished by having a baby, GOPMOM wrote:

When rational people discuss teen pregnancy and the irresponsible behavior that leads to teen pregnancies, we speak of consequences, not punishment. When we talk about babies, planned or unplanned, we call them blessings. I have never, in my life, heard anyone refer to a baby as a punishment. Some women feel that the process of giving birth is a punishment, but even they feel the baby is the gift.

It sounds to me like Obama has an issue with inopportune pregnancies. Could he possibly have an issue with his own existence? Is he at odds with himself? Is it possible that just a little bit of him resents his parents for the difficult path they chose for him? After all, we are constantly reminded that his success is akin to a miracle based on the obstacles placed in front him due to the circumstances of his birth. All of Obama’s personal struggles seem to stem from his parentage. Is this latest remark an example of how he truly feels about his life, that somehow he was a punishment? How Old Testament of him.

I doubt very much that Obama has gone Old Testament because his statement contradicts what the Old Testament says about children. The Old Testament has a very high view of children. As the Psalmist wrote: “Behold, children are a gift of the LORD, the fruit of the womb is a reward” (Psalm 127:3).

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Barack Obama, Children, Pregnancy

An Assyrian Administrative Center at Ramat Rachel

Oded Lipschits, a professor at Tel Aviv University’s Department of Archaeology and the director of the excavation at Ramat Rachel, an archaeological site about two miles from Jerusalem, has concluded that, what he believed to be a Judean palace from the time of Hezekiah, king of Judah (715-687 B.C.), was in reality an ancient local administrative center used by the Assyrians to maintain their hegemony in the area.

According to Lipschits,

“Between 700 BCE to about 70 CE, Jerusalem was home to various Judean cults and at times a center for religious fanaticism. The Assyrians understood that they could gain better control of their vassal kingdom - and continue collecting taxes - by maintaining a safe distance.”

In evaluating how the Assyrians used this administrative center, Lipschits said:

“The Assyrians built their economic hub for the region two miles south of Jerusalem at Ramat Rachel. They created elaborate gardens, stocked their cellars with the wine and olive oil they collected in taxes, and quietly but carefully monitored Jerusalem.”

“You can see Jerusalem from Ramat Rachel, but when you’re inside Jerusalem’s City of David, you can’t see Ramat Rachel at all,” says Lipschits. “The Assyrians kept a watchful eye, but didn’t let the locals feel a dominant foreign presence.”

“It was smart for the Assyrian managers to take a few steps back, and not appear to be interfering with the city’s religious center and local culture. Businesses today could be advised to adopt similar strategies with their branch offices in foreign locations,” he surmises.

If Lipschits’s evaluation of the site at Ramat Rachel is correct, then the site will make an important contribution to the proper understanding of the situation in Jerusalem during the time Judah served as a vassal of Assyria. Let us hope that ongoing excavation at the site will produce additional information on the Assyrian presence at Ramat Rachel.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Archaeology, Oded Lipschits, Ramat Rachel

The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah

Mark Hempsell, a researcher from Bristol University, has announced that a clay tablet containing cuneiform symbols may explain the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. According to the researcher, the clay tablet provides an eyewitness account of an asteroid that crashed into the Austrian Alps and is behind the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

According to the researchers, the tablet was found in the remains of the library in the royal palace at Nineveh in the mid-19th century and it “is thought to be a 700 B.C. copy of notes made by a Sumerian astronomer watching the night sky.”

Read the news report by clicking here.

This theory has created much enthusiasm among people who want to prove that the Bible is true. The proposed theory is attractive but it is difficult to prove that the asteroid described in the tablet was the cause for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. One fact that militates against the theory is the date proposed for the asteroid. According to the researchers, the asteroid hit the earth on June 29, 3123 B.C. This date would put Abraham at 1120 B.C., a date that contradicts the chronology for the patriarchal age. The age of the patriarchs is generally dated in the Middle Bronze Age, between 1950-1800 B.C.

Good try!

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Abraham, Gomorrah, Sodom

Egypt: A Photo Gallery

The National Geographic is presenting a photo gallery of the monuments of ancient Egypt. The twelve photos present Egypt’s ancient past, from the Great Sphinx to the Pyramids. The photos are magnificent. Visit the National Geographic to enter the gallery.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tag: Archaeology, Egypt

Ramses II: A Photo Gallery

The National Geographic is presenting a photo gallery of Ramses II. The monuments Ramses created remain a timeless testament of the glories of ancient Egypt.

Visit the National Geographic and see photos of the monuments celebrating the glory of Ramses II.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tag: Archaeology, Egypt