Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
1 (2012): 124]
VOLUME 3, ISSUE 1
_________________________________________
99
/
151
49
ISSN 2169-0685
Managing Editor
WILLIAM R. OSBORNE
(College of the Ozarks, USA)
Associate Editor
RUSSELL L. MEEK
(Midwestern Baptist Theological
Seminary, USA)
Editorial Board
T. DESMOND ALEXANDER (Union
Theological College, Queens
University, Ireland)
The issue of hope in the book of Kings has long been a focal point of
debate. This paper approaches the question from the standpoint of the
final form of the book, rather than attempting to discern the voice of the
Deuteronomist(s) within the text. I argue that the message of hope is
exposed by a central theological tension within the book: that Yahweh
has promised both blessing to David and curse for Mosaic breach. I
conclude that in the resolution of this tension the book encourages
hope in its exilic readership, but precludes a return to the monarchy as
it was formerly. Rather, the purpose of Kings as it now stands is to
reshape exilic hope towards a different type of kingdom, and to
demonstrate to the exiles the new shape that this kingdom will take
through the prophetic ministry amongst the powerless to gather a
remnant. Messianic and nationalistic hope in Kings is shaped by the
exile, which represents a new beginning for Yahwehs people.
In this paper I revisit the question of what hope for restoration the book
of Kings offers its exilic readership.1 For over half a century this question
has been central to an analysis of the message of Kings, and answers
have ranged across a spectrum: from hope for complete restoration of the
Davidic monarchy, to no hope whatsoever.2 The question was first posed
1. I am assuming an exilic composition of Kings, which is implied by the account of
Jehoiachins release in 561 B.C. (2 Kgs 25:2730).
2. I outline some of the positions here, but see Michael Avioz, The Book of Kings in
Recent Research (Part 1), Currents 4 (2005): 1820.
______________________________________________________
of the Religion of Israel [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973], 27478,
28789). The first redaction supported Josiahs reforms and had a positive assessment
of the Israelite monarchy, but was later modified by a second Deuteronomist explaining
the exile. Although Crosss proposal of multiple redactions of the material has been
broadly accepted (Avioz, The Book of Kings, 1416), his scepticism about the
coherence of Kings as the book now stands has not. Much recent scholarship agrees
that the final form of Kings presents a more or less coherent message, whatever its
literary history. See, e.g., Jon D. Levenson, The Last Four Verses in Kings, JBL 103
(1984): 35456; Terence E. Fretheim, First and Second Kings (Louisville: Westminster
John Knox, 1999), 810; Walter A. Brueggemann, 1 & 2 Kings (Macon, GA: Smyth &
Helwys, 2000), 15; and Jerome T. Walsh and David W. Cotter, 1 Kings (Collegeville,
MN: Liturgical, 1996), xii. All these find coherence in the message of the book, despite
their disparate approaches. Janzen critiques the whole approach in Janzen, The Sins of
Josiah and Hezekiah, 35155.
7. This demands that the narrative be considered a cohesive whole, and this will be a
feature of my approach, rather than explaining the tension as the result of a series of
editions. The history of the debate has often focussed on the message of the
Deuteronomist, rather than the book itself, and so the discussion has usually revolved
around a small number of key texts considered Deuteronomistic. Such texts include
Solomons prayer of dedication (1 Kgs 8:2261), Jeroboam and Rehoboam (1 Kgs 12
13), the release of Jehoiachin (2 Kings 25:2730), and the Deuteronomistic
endorsement of Josiah (2 Kgs 2223). See, e.g., McConville, Narrative and Meaning,
3134, and J. Gordon McConville, 1 Kings VIII 4653 and the Deuteronomic Hope,
VT 42 (1992): 6771. There are, however, a number of non-Deuteronomistic texts that
are usually omitted from consideration, but that comprise large sections of the book,
especially: the Elijah/Elisha narratives (1 Kgs 1719, 2 Kgs 313), some of the
Solomon narratives (1 Kgs 34), material from Ahab, Jezebel, and Jehu (2 Kgs 910),
as well as the Isaianic material in the Hezekiah narrative (2 Kgs 18:1320:21). See
Susanne Otto, The Composition of the Elijah-Elisha Stories and the Deuteronomistic
History, JSOT 27 (2003): 48790. This essay outlines a reading of Kings that relates
the broader narrative to its central theological tension.
8. See Bruce K. Waltke and Charles Yu, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical,
Canonical, and Thematic Approach (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007), 14756.
9. Apart from explicit mention, there are numerous allusions to the Horeb covenant
through mention of Moses (e.g., 1 Kgs 2:3; 8:53, 56; 2 Kgs 8:6; 14:6; 21:8; 23:25),
Torah (2 Kgs 10:31; 17:13, 34, 37; 23:24), or other Deuteronomic language (e.g., 1 Kgs
3:6). The Ark of the Covenant explicitly refers to the Horeb covenant (1 Kgs 8:21); the
Book of the Covenant found by Josiah (2 Kgs 22:8) is very likely to be some form of
Deuteronomy.
10. Solomons prayer of dedication reflects on how Yahwehs faithfulness to Moses
has established Israel within the land (1 Kgs 8:56). This is the only positive use of the
Mosaic covenant in the book, but it is not a future promise of blessing.
11. This is not to imply that 2 Sam 7 is something other than a covenant, since the book
understands the fulfilment of the Mosaic blessings and curses in these terms also (1
Kgs 8:56; 2 Kgs 17:23). Nor does it imply that the two are unrelated. One of the
features of Kings presentation of the Davidic covenant is to make it conditional on
covenant obedience to the Mosaic covenant. I will return to this below.
12. Every prophetic utterance recorded in the book (eventually) happens according to
the word of Yahweh ( ) during the course of the narrative (1 Kgs 12:24; 13:26;
14:18, etc.). Therefore, fulfilment of Yahwehs word has long been recognised as a
theme of Kings. Von Rad tabulated the predictions and fulfilments in Kings and notes
that Kings also fulfils some prophetic announcements from the Deuteronomistic history
more generally (e.g., 1 Kgs 2:27 fulfils 1 Sam 2:2736.) Gerhard Von Rad, From
Genesis to Chronicles: Explorations in Old Testament Theology (Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress, 2005), 15759.
13. Strictly speaking, the curse is a promise as well. Indeed, this is the point, because
the two promises of God are in opposition, which creates the narrative tension.
However, to understand the promise of curse and the promise of blessing as alternate
outcomes of the one covenant misses the point of Kings because it undoes the tension
that requires both. The language the book uses in association with David implies that,
conceptually at least, it is possible that this word of blessing will stand even after the
covenant curse has been enacted. Because word is awkward in English, I have chosen
to use language of promise, in opposition to covenant and curse, as a way to
better reflect the underlying theology of the book.
fulfilled, it shapes what Israel might hope for in this new beginning. I
will explore the shape of this hope both in messianic and nationalistic
terms.
IS THE DAVIDIC PROMISE NULLIFIED
BY COVENANT DISOBEDIENCE?
The 2 Sam 7 version of the Davidic promise was explicitly not
conditioned on obedience to Moses (2 Sam 7:1415), but in Kings it is
always linked to the covenant and its fulfilment always requires
obedience (1 Kgs 2:4; 6:12; 8:25; 9:57). Therefore, one possibility for
resolving the tension between promise and curse is to read the narrative
as an explanation of why the promise has been nullified.14 Although this
interpretation has been common,15 there are several reasons why it is
unsuitable.
First, although the promise is stated in conditional form, its
continued unconditional nature is reflected in other ways. The burning
lamp leitmotif (1 Kgs 11:36; 15:4; 2 Kgs 8:19) reaffirms Yahwehs
purpose to preserve Judah because of his commitment to David, and
Yahweh continues to deal favourably with the southern dynasty for the
sake of David (1 Kgs 11:1213, 3236; 15:4; 2 Kgs 8:19; 19:34; 20:6).
Also, phrases like those in 11:36, that David might always ()
have a lamp before me, are universal and unconditional (see also 11:32,
39). There is no explicit abrogation of the Davidic promise in the book of
Kings, but there is explicit reaffirmation of Yahwehs choice of David (1
Kgs 8:16; 11:34).16
Second, other positive factors in the book can be understood as
indicators of the continued validity of the Davidic promise into the exile.
These include the ongoing commitment to Davids city as Yahwehs
chosen habitation (1 Kgs 8:44, 48; 14:21; 23:27),17 in some cases forever
(1 Kgs 8:13; 9:3; 10:9; 2 Kgs 21:7), and the continued role of Zion
during exile (1 Kgs 8:4651).
14. As per the priestly lineage of Eli (1 Sam 2:30).
15. E.g., Wolff, Kerygma, 86.
16. Janzen argues that the compiler of Kings both knew 2 Sam 7 and intentionally
refused to abrogate it, and that this is true whether the book stands independently of the
rest of the Deuteronomic history or not (An Ambiguous Ending, 5051).
17. 2 Kgs 23:27 indicates that Yahweh has cast off ( )Jerusalem, but I will discuss
this text below.
10
role does the Mosaic covenant play in the message of the book? The key
question is why the compiler of Kings reframed the Davidic promise as
dependent on obedience to Moses when he did not intend to undo the
unconditional promise of 2 Sam 7. What is gained by adding conditions
to an unconditional covenant?21
It accomplishes two things. First, it creates space for the
Deuteronomistic assessment of individual kings without jeopardising the
ultimate fulfilment of the promise. The continued validity of the Davidic
promise does not imply that every Davidic scion will be automatically
blessed,22 and not every Davidic scion must be obedient in order for God
to ultimately fulfil his promise. Rather, God is free to enact the covenant
curses for disobedience, knowing that one of Davids future offspring
will yet receive the blessings. This is possible even from exile (2 Kgs
25:2730), which is the ultimate curse for covenant breach (Deut 29:22
28).
Second, it shapes the overall messianic expectation of the book.
McConville notes that as the story progresses, it becomes clearer that
there is a deep tension in the narrative, whose resolution will not be in
terms of unqualified hope for Judah in contrast to menace for the north
only.23 Rather, both covenant and promise remain in effect: punishment
for any dynasty in breach of Mosess, including Davids, but ultimate
blessing for David nevertheless. The tension gives the overall narrative a
messianic overtone as it awaits its only possible resolution: a righteous
covenant-keeping king to sit on the throne of David.
Solomon is a fine example of the way the Mosaic covenant
critiques the Davidic kings despite the Davidic promise. References to
the Davidic promise are clustered around Solomon,24 and he is explicitly
portrayed as the promised Davidic scion on multiple occasions: from his
own lips (1 Kgs 2:24, 33, 45; 3:6; 5:5 [Heb. 5:19]; 8:20, 2426), by his
father (1 Kgs 2:4), by Hiram of Tyre (1 Kgs 5:7 [Heb. 5:21]), by Yahweh
21. McConville has explored this question in relation to the book of Deuteronomy
where there is a parallel tension. See J. Gordon McConville, Grace in the End: A Study
in Deuteronomic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993), 13439. In the book
of Deuteronomy, the question is whether the conditionality of the Mosaic covenant
supersedes the certainty of the promised blessing to Abraham, and I am indebted to his
line of reasoning for the argument I use here with respect to Kings.
22. McConville, 1 Kings VIII, 7779.
23. McConville, Narrative and Meaning, 38.
24. Of the 26 allusions to the Davidic promise in Kings, 22 are found in the Solomon
narratives.
11
(1 Kgs 6:12; 9:5; 11:1213), and the narrator (1 Kgs 2:12). On the
surface, the account of Solomons achievements seems overwhelmingly
positive. His kingdom is presented as idyllic (1 Kgs 4:25): the fulfilment
of patriarchal promises for a multitudinous nation (1 Kgs 3:8, Gen 15:5;
1 Kgs 4:20, Gen 22:17), the land of Canaan (1 Kgs 4:21, Gen 15:1819),
and the blessings of the Mosaic covenant (1 Kgs 8:56, Deut 12:1013). It
is understandable, then, that many interpret Solomons kingdom as a
foreshadowing of the kingdom of God, and Solomon as a prototype of
Gods ideal, wise king.25
Yet, this is an unbalanced portrait of Solomon in Kings. Even
throughout the early chapters of the book, prior to his explicit apostasy in
1 Kgs 11, there is a subtext that critiques Solomons reign.26 The
Deuteronomic laws of kingship (Deut 17:1420) read like a checklist of
anti-Solomonic rhetoric: forbidding the acquisition of horses (1 Kgs
10:26), trade with Egypt (1 Kgs 10:28), accumulation of gold (1 Kgs
10:27), and collection of wives (1 Kgs 11:1). And even though
Deuteronomy enjoins Israels king to read, copy, and recite the law,
Solomon is never portrayed as doing this.
Solomons failure is broader than explicit disobedience.27 His
use of his wisdom comes under narrative critique, even though it is a
divine gift (1 Kgs 3:1014). He is charged by David to establish the
kingdom according to his wisdom (1 Kgs 2:6, 9), which results in the
assassination of his political enemies (1 Kgs 3:1346). His alliance with
Hiram of Tyre is portrayed as a result of his wisdom (1 Kgs 5:12), and
yet requires the forced labour of thousands of his own people (1 Kgs
5:1318). The same treaty jeopardises Israelite territory (1 Kgs 9:10
11)28 and results in a further breach of Deuteronomic law (Deut 17:15).
25. E.g., Provan, The Messiah in the Book of Kings, 7677. His eventual demise (1
Kgs 11) has done little to detract from this image, in many eyes he has simply
succumbed to the weakness of human failure at the end of his life.
26. There is a recent trend in scholarship to explore the ambiguity of Solomons
character. E.g., Walter A. Brueggemann, Solomon: Israels Ironic Icon of Human
Achievement (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2005), 15359; J.
Daniel Hays, Has the Narrator Come to Praise Solomon or to Bury Him? Narrative
Subtlety in 1 Kings 111, JSOT 28 (2003): 155; Hugh S. Pyper, Judging the Wisdom
of Solomon: The Two-Way Effect of Intertextuality, JSOT (1993): 35; and Kim I.
Parker, Solomon as Philosopher King: The Nexus of Law and Wisdom in 1 Kings 1
11, JSOT (1992): 76.
27. I am indebted to Davies and Hays here, who outline the different ways that the
narrative subtly presents Solomon as a failure in his foreign alliances. See John A.
Davies, Discerning Between Good and Evil: Solomon as a New Adam in 1 Kings,
WTJ 73 (2011): 5253 and Hays, Has the Narrator, 163.
12
______________________________________________________
28. Compare Naboths attitude to Israelite land in 1 Kgs 21:3.
29. Peter J. Leithart suggests that Solomon increasingly becomes more Pharaonic as the
narrative progresses, until Israel finds themselves symbolically back in Egypt under his
rule (1 & 2 Kings [Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2006], 76).
30. Ibid., 82.
31. See Davies, Discerning Between Good and Evil, 4144.
13
32. This is paralleled in nearly all of the prophetic literature. See Hos 3:45, Amos
9:1115, Jer 33:2326, Ezek 37:1528.
33. This is Wolffs thesis, that future hope in Kings is based on repentance. Wolff,
Kerygma, 9193. See more recently Janzen, The Sins of Josiah and Hezekiah, 370.
14
15
8:33, 34, 35, 47, 48), it is not the ultimate source of hope for the future.
Solomons prayer may encourage repentance of its exilic readership, but
it does not encourage a belief that repentance will restore Israel from
exile. It only asks for forgiveness from sin and compassion from their
captors (1 Kgs 8:4653). Something more than repentance is ultimately
required if the Davidic promise is to be fulfilled.
Nowhere is this better illustrated than the Josiah narrative. The
dust from Josiahs conquest has not even settled (2 Kgs 23:6, 12, 15)
when the reader is abruptly reminded that Josiah too will fail. Josiah has
turned ( )to Yahweh (2 Kgs 23:25), but Yahweh has not turned ()
from his anger (2 Kgs 23:2627). National repentance has not atoned for
the former breach of covenant,37 as Josiah understands (2 Kgs 22:13).
Neither is the prophetic message from Huldah one of blessing and
restoration following repentance, but rather one of certain judgment
despite it (2 Kgs 22:1618).
Since Josiah is the archetypal covenant-keeping ruler in Kings,38
his untimely death (2 Kgs 23:2930) at once lays to rest any hope that
Mosaic reform will establish the kingdom promised to David, and
removes any notion that the message of the book might be that reform in
exile will trigger the fulfilment of the Davidic promise.
But what then of the messianic arc that began in 1 Kgs 13:2? 39
Despite the imposing volume of scholarly attention devoted to Josiah,
comparatively little attention has been given to the role he plays in the
narrative as it now stands.40 Simply by its context within a wider
narrative of ultimate failure, the Mosaic reforms of Josiah take their
place among a long list of things that do not work to fulfil Davidic hope.
Therefore, in the end, the covenant is seen to be an unsuitable vehicle for
37. Janzen, The Sins of Josiah and Hezekiah, 361.
38. Unlike Solomon, Josiahs relationship to the Davidic promise is underplayed. Only
once does the narrative remind us that Josiah is a Davidic heir (2 Kgs 22:2). By contrast
Hezekiah, Judahs other great reformer, is explicitly portrayed as Davidic several times
(2 Kgs 18:3; 19:34; 20:5). Kings primarily understands Josiah in relation to covenant,
and Hezekiah, as we shall see, in relation to promise, and then examines them in that
light.
39. This question is precisely what drove Cross to propose his double-redaction theory.
See Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 27478.
40. Even if, as Cross asserted (ibid., 27478), the book of Kings developed from a
document intended to support Josianic reform, the role of Josiah in the final narrative is
neither to demonstrate a successful king (according to the hopes of the Davidic
promise), nor a successful kingdom. See Leithart, 1 & 2 Kings, 26671 and James R.
Linville, Israel in the Book of Kings: The Past as a Project of Social Identity
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 22935.
16
the realisation of the promises to David. Even in the hands of the most
law-abiding of kings, the Mosaic covenant is unable to usher in the
kingdom of promise simply because the covenant lacks what is needed
most: a means by which former sin might be forgiven (2 Kgs 23:2627;
see 1 Kgs 8:46).41
THE EXILE AS YAHWEHS NEW BEGINNING
If the Mosaic covenant is unable to realise the Davidic promise then the
exile itself becomes a symbol of hope because it fulfils the curses of the
Mosaic covenant (2 Kgs 17:723, Deut 29:2428),42 but leaves Israel
with the promise that a righteous, covenant-keeping Davidic king will
yet come. The exile is not simply Yahwehs judgment, but the chance for
him to now act according to the blessings he has promised, unrestricted
by the demands of the curses (see Deut 30:16).
Although, strictly speaking, the exiles of the northern and
southern kingdoms occur finally in 2 Kgs 17 and 2425 respectively,
they have been foreshadowed in the narrative long before that.43 Kings
begins with an account of Yahweh establishing and blessing the united
kingdom by fighting against their enemies (1 Kgs 2:12, 24, 45, 46), and
ends with Yahweh having set those enemies against his own people to
destroy them (2 Kgs 24:23). The turning point in the exercise of
Yahwehs power is not the exile itself; it is Elijahs flight to Horeb, and
particularly 1 Kgs 19:1518. Two events occur within these verses that
are of interest.
First, Yahweh will bring judgment on the house of Ahab (1 Kgs
19:17). He not only intends to raise up Jehu, but Hazaela Syrian
against Ahabs dynasty. This important moment marks the only occasion
in Israels historical literature that a non-Israelite is anointed ().44
41. Kings makes a similar point as Jer 31:3134 through the narrative theology of the
book. In the context of exile, Jeremiah also reaffirms the Davidic promise (Jer 33:14
17), but envisages the need for a new covenant unlike the Mosaic covenant (Jer 31:32)
whereby sin might be forgiven (Jer 31:34). Neither Kings nor Jeremiah implies that the
Mosaic law is no longer important for the exiles (Jer 31:33), but rather the modification
of the covenant terms whereby Israel might live (Deut 5:33).
42. Note the way the narrator relates the exile to the Mosaic covenant (v. 7): . . .
. . . .
43. The fate of the northern kingdom was sealed from the time of Jeroboam I (1 Kgs
14:16).
44. This is paralleled in the prophetic corpus as a sign of Yahwehs sovereignty over
the foreign powers, and that even the mighty Cyrus unwittingly serves Yahweh (Is
17
______________________________________________________
44:2845:1). Hazael is strictly speaking the only anointed one in Kings.
45. Wesley J. Bergen fails to see this shift in the nature of prophetic ministry and
argues, instead, that Elisha failed in his prophetic duty to call Israel to any real kind of
repentance (Elijah and the End of Prophetism [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999],
176). See also Philip E. Satterthwaite (The Elisha Narratives and the Coherence of 2
Kings 28, TynBul 49 [1998], 128), who makes the same assumption.
46. The verb is a weqatal (), which places it in logical (but not necessarily
temporal) sequence with the judgment verbs of the previous verse (v. 17). Hazael will
put to death and Elisha will put to death, but Yahweh will cause to remain. That
is, this should not be understood simply as Yahwehs answer to Elijahs complaint that
Israel has forsaken your covenant and only I am left (v. 14). Yahweh is not saying,
Its OK, there are 7,000 after all! Rather, this is an exilic promise: a group who will
survive the coming judgment of Hazael and Jehu.
47. Scholarship on this group has been concerned with identifying a historical subcommunity of Israel to whom to attach the label . See Michael Avioz, The
Book of Kings in Recent Research (Part 2), Currents 5 (2006): 72. While this is an
interesting question, it is not necessary in order to understand the role of the group
within the narrative of Kings.
18
2:1525 illustrates the relationship between Elisha and this group well.
Immediately following Elijahs ascension, Elisha performs two miracles
that reveal the nature of his ministry. The first is a deliverance miracle,
directed specifically towards this group (2 Kgs 2:1522). The second is a
judgment miracle directed against some Israelite boys (2 Kgs 2:2325).
Throughout his ministry, Elishas deliverance miracles are not directed
for the benefit of Israel generally, but only for this group (see 2 Kgs 4:1
7, 3844; 6:16),48 or for the benefit of Israels enemies (2 Kgs 3:127;
5:114; 6:823).49
Although Elishas ministry is focused particularly on the house
of Ahab, it illustrates the wider point. Through his ministry we see that
Yahweh will no longer direct his energy toward building and maintaining
the old Israelite kingdoms because Israel has forsaken the covenant (1
Kgs 19:10, 14) and all that remains is the curse. Yahweh continues to
exercise patience, especially when confronted with a penitent king (1
Kgs 21:2529; 2 Kgs 22:19), but the curse will not be undone. Exile is
inevitable. However, precisely in this exile there is hope because
Yahweh will do something new, and the Davidic promise is not the only
indication we have from Kings as to what that new thing will be. We
now also understand this new Israel through the prophetic concept of
remnant.
The question of hope in the book of Kings has now taken us in
two directions. First, the book continues to expect a Davidic scion, even
into the exile. And second, in light of the covenantal failures of Israel
and Judah, the book refocuses the readers attention away from those
kingdoms and toward the prophetic ministry and the remnant that will
survive exile. I now turn to assessing those two strands of hope.
THE SHAPE OF MESSIANIC HOPE IN THE BOOK OF KINGS
What would the Messiah of Gods new beginning look like? Obviously
messianic hope is grounded in the Davidic promise (2 Sam 7:1216), so
48. Although not explicitly identified as part of this group, the narrative placement of
the miracle in Shunem (2 Kgs 4:810), sandwiched between two Sons of the
Prophets miracles (4:17, 3844), as well as the indication that the woman fears
Yahweh (4:9), indicates that this is not a break in the pattern. Elisha is still directing his
energy toward those who have not bowed the knee to Baal (1 Kgs 19:18). It is the
same woman in 2 Kgs 8:16.
49. The story of the siege of Samaria (2 Kgs 6:247:2), which involves only an oracle
(rather than a miracle) from Elisha, appears to be an exception to the pattern. It can be
explained because Hazael, rather than Ben-hadad, was to be Yahwehs anointed ()
against Israel (1 Kgs 19:17), and Hazael will not become king of Syria until 2 Kgs 8.
19
the Messiah will be a Davidic scion. Beyond this, I have argued above
that the only possible resolution to the tension between covenant and
promise is that a king must appear who is righteous by Mosaic standards.
Since the promise is certain, the book encourages hope for this kind of
Messiah. Deuteronomy 17:1420 outlines the expectation: an Israelite
who does not rely on militarily power, who is not prone to accumulating
wives and money, who is subject to the law of Moses, and who is
humble. There are no kings like this in the book of Kings.50
Usually, discussions of messianic hope in Kings examine as case
studies those few southern kings that the narrative endorses. For
example, Provans study understands Solomon, Hezekiah, and Josiah to
function messianically when read in the wider context of the Former
Prophets.51 There is some truth to thisthe Messiah that Kings expects
should be wise, faithful, and righteous. However to understand Judahs
good kings as messianic case studies requires a reading of the book that
overlooks the overall shape of the narrative because ultimately each of
these kings failed. Solomon did not fail because he stopped being wise,
Hezekiah did not fail because he stopped trusting, and neither did Josiah
fail because he transgressed the covenant. Furthermore, none of these
kings live up to Deut 17:1420 despite their endorsement from the
narrator. It can hardly be the argument of the book that the hoped-for
Messiah will be a king like these.52 Rather, the book hopes that
someone greater than Solomon might one day appear.53
The key to messianic hope in the book is to ask how it is shaped
by the failure of these kings and their kingdoms, as the account of
Jehoiachin demonstrates (2 Kgs 25:27).54 Jehoiachin is released in the
thirty-seventh year of the exile, but regains neither kingdom nor crown.
Rather, he lives indebted to the king of Babylon, who lifts his head and
speaks kindly too him ( ; 2 Kgs 25:2728).55 Thus
50. Even Josiah does not meet this standard, despite his endorsement. See J. Gordon
McConville, Deuteronomy (Leicester: Apollos, 2002), 21617.
51. Provan, The Messiah in the Book of Kings, 8081.
52. I do not have the space here to do full justice to Provans reading, which is more
nuanced than my brief portrayal here suggests; however, I think the critique stands.
53. I allude, of course, to Matt 12:42.
54. The release of Jehoiachin has been the interpretive crux of the whole debate on
hope in the books of Kings. See Gerhard Von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy (trans. D.
M. G. Stalker; London: SCM, 1953), 9091. Here I am indebted here to Levensons
careful reading of Jehoiachins release (The Last Four Verses, 35658).
55. Levenson argues that this phrase ( ) should be understood as the
20
______________________________________________________
beginning of a treaty of subjugation between Evil-merodach and Jehoiachin, which is
plausible (ibid., 361). He concludes from this that the message of hope in Kings
represents part of an effort by an exilic Deuteronomistic source to bring the legacy of
the promissory covenant with David into line with the new historical reality effected by
the events of 587 B.C.E. and with the novel social and political situation of the
continuing Diaspora.
56. The exilic prophets agree with this sentiment, See Jer 29, esp. v. 7. The result of the
exile is that messianic hope in ancient Israel shifts in the direction that Israels postexilic literature will eventually take, in which a messianic figure, like Zerubbabel, can
be understood as a governor who reigns only at the pleasure of a foreign overlord
(see Hag 2:2023; Zech 5:610; 9:913).
57. J. Gordon McConville, God and Earthly Power: An Old Testament Political
Theology, GenesisKings (London: T & T Clark, 2008), 8081.
58. Which is something even Evil-merodach managed to do (2 Kgs 25:28)!
21
22
1 Kgs 8:2830
1 Kgs 8:3132
Condemning guilty,
vindicating righteous
1 Kgs 8:3334
1 Kgs 8:3536
1 Kgs 8:3740
1 Kgs 8:4143
1 Kgs 8:4445
Victory in battle
1 Kgs 8:4653
Compassion in exile
Delivered by Prophets
1 Kgs 13:6; 17:22; 18:36
37; 2 Kgs 4:1837; 6:17
1 Kgs 13:2122; 14:716;
18:2040; 20:3543; 21:17
24; etc.
2 Kgs 7:12; 13:1419
1 Kgs 18:4146; 2 Kgs 3:17
1 Kgs 17:816; 2 Kgs 4:1
7, 3844
1 Kgs 17:816; 2 Kgs 5:1
14
1 Kgs 20:13, 28; 2 Kgs 7:1
20
Who then is Israel within Kings? Is it those who have the temple or those
who receive the blessings of the temple? For the exilic readers who are
without a temple, it is surely the latter. After 1 Kgs 19, the message of
hope in the book of Kings is to be found within the remnant who receive
Yahwehs provision and blessing, and not within nationalist Israel and
Judah, even if these two groups overlap at times.
What shape does this new Israel take in the story of Kings?
There are several clues in the narrative, the most prominent of which is
the role of faith, which is the correct response to the prophetic word. 62
Nowhere in the historical literature does the concept of faith arise so
frequently as 2 Kgs 1819, where it is closely linked with deliverance of
the remnant (2 Kgs 19:3031).63 All eight instances of the verb trust
62. It has become clear that Israel is unable to yield obedience, which is the correct
response to covenant.
63. This is the only other explicit occurrence of remnant in 12 Kings.
23
24
4:3235) and to the remnant who would not bow the knee to Baal (2 Kgs
2:1922; 4:3844; 6:16).
In the prophetic ministry of Elijah and Elisha it matters very
little whether these people are Israelite or not, as the Naaman narrative
demonstrates (2 Kgs 5, see also 1 Kgs 17:824). It is a story of reversals.
An oppressor of Israel become one of the oppressed, powerful Naaman
becomes helpless with leprosy (2 Kgs 5:1). His restoration involves
learning to trust the powerless (2 Kgs 5:4, 13) rather than appealing to
the powerful (2 Kgs 5:57, 1112). Naaman becomes like a child (2 Kgs
5:14) and becomes a servant himself ( is used five times in 2 Kgs
5:1518). In doing so he joins the new Israel of those who are blessed by
Yahweh (2 Kgs 5:1517). It is significant that Naaman leaves with a gift
of the land; not because Yahweh is localised in Israel as some have
supposed,67 but because the land is the promised inheritance of Israel, as
Naboth protested to Ahab (1 Kgs 21:4).68
By 2 Kgs 5 the kingdom of promise is now clearly found
amongst the remnant, who are the servants, the humble, the poor, and the
lowly. As Naaman becomes one of those, he too inherits the earth, and
hope for blessing comes to the Gentiles. This is not to imply that Naaman
becomes a national Israelite; clearly he does not. It is as a Gentile that he
comes to inherit the Israelite blessing, but this too is Deuteronomic: the
blessings of Yahweh go to the Gentiles when the wrath of God turns
against national Israel (Deut 32:21).
The curious and short account of Elishas death, or at least his
bones (2 Kgs 13:2021), is also noteworthy in the discussion of the new
Israel.69 There are strong textual links with the narrators comment that
follows it (2 Kgs 13:2223), so that the placement of the two becomes
highly suggestive of exilic themes.70 The word cast in v. 21 ( )is the
same word as used in v. 23, and throughout the book, to refer to
Yahwehs action of removing Israel from the land (2 Kgs 17:20; see also
1 Kgs 9:7; 2 Kgs 24:20). On its own, the repetition of this word is
67. E.g., Mordechai Cogan, 1 Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), 67; Hobbs, 2 Kings, 66.
The book of Kings itself rejects this conclusion by portraying Yahweh as sovereign
over foreign kings and nations, anointing them (1 Kgs 19:15), and using them for his
purposes (e.g., 2 Kgs 17:718).
68. See Fretheim, First and Second Kings, 15455; Leithart, 1 & 2 Kings, 19597.
69. The episode has confused commentators who see it as essentially humorous or
inexplicable (e.g., Brueggemann, 1 & 2 Kings, 43233).
70. See Fretheim, First and Second Kings, 184.
25
26
God: on the one hand, certain hope for Davids dynasty, and on the other,
certain destruction for disobedience to the Mosaic covenant. The
narrative of Kings explores this tension in order to see how these two
seemingly contradictory promises might be reconciled, and what, if any,
hope might be offered for the first readers of the book in the Babylonian
exile.
The book forbids the conclusion that either of the promises
undoes the other, so there is only one resolution left. The curses must be
enacted for covenant breach, as indeed it had been for the first readers of
the book, which then leaves only hope that the promise might be
fulfilled. Thus, the exile becomes a symbol of hope in itself: that now
Yahweh might begin something new.
The messiah that Kings expects is unlike any of the Davidic
kings in Judahs or Israels history because, despite having abundant
blessing from Yahweh, their kingdoms failed. Rather, the release of
Jehoiachin during exile confirms that Yahweh is able to raise a Davidic
heir even without Davids throne. Israels exilic situation does not
preclude the fulfilment of Yahwehs promise, and so the book
encourages the exiles to hope for the appearance of a righteous,
covenant-keeping king, even from exile, who will inherit the promise to
David.
Likewise, the nationalistic kingdoms of Israel and Judah have
failed, but the ministries of the prophetic figures of the book have shown
that exile is not Yahwehs final word for Israel. The book expects a
remnant who will survive the coming destruction, through whom
Yahwehs new Israel might yet be raised from the dead. But this new
Israel will not look like the power structures of national Israel. Instead,
they will be the widows, the orphans, the humble, and even the Gentiles.
They will be those who have not bowed the knee to Baal. They will be
those who hear the word of Yahweh as it comes through the prophetic
ministry and respond with faith.
To conclude, that hope in the book of Kings is shaped in this
way certainly moves us beyond the interests of the so called
Deuteronomist. Indeed, if it is correct, it may require a reassessment of
some of the proposed literary history of the book, which after all relies
heavily on the presupposition of the books purpose.74 But it does give a
reading of the book that is more closely aligned with the theology of its
contemporary exilic literature, as well as one that plays a definite role in
the canonical shape of Scripture and the flow of the overarching story of
74. Janzen has recently also called for a revision of the sourcecritical hypothesis in
light of his more synchronic reading (The Sins of Josiah and Hezekiah, 370).
27
the Bible. The hope is firmly placed in God, for every human king and
institution in the book has failed. Kings becomes a story of the hope that
remains after Israel moves from the nationalistic and glorious roots of
Solomon to the reality of exilea scattered people and a subjugated
king. But such a reality is not antithetical to the purpose of God for
Israel. In fact, it is cogent with Gods overall plan. The book tells the
story of how the kingdom of Israel might move from Solomons
kingdom to something greater than Solomon; to a people who will not
bow the knee to Baal. It tells the story of how Yahweh might yet, even
from exile, raise up a servant king.
INTRODUCTION
As OT scholars of the past several centuries have analyzed and
assimilated countless archaeological discoveries, they have directed their
areas of expertise along avenues that previous generations were unable to
travel. Perhaps no branch of OT scholarship has progressed more rapidly
than the study of the Hebrew language. These appreciable advancements
serve the purpose of better illuminating critical concepts such as OT
figures of speech and their theological significance. Once such phrase
that is worthy of examination is the expression the arm of the LORD.1
1. Although the phrase ( arm of the LORD) occurs only a handful of times in
the OT, numerous texts associate the arm with God. In this study, the arm of the
LORD will serve as shorthand for the miscellaneous descriptive terms that the OT
writers applied to God (e.g., holy arm, outstretched arm, powerful arm, etc.).
Also of importance is the phrase the hand of the LORD. While in Exod 6:67 God
30
______________________________________________________
promised to redeem his people with his arm, in Exod 7:5 he assured the sons of Israel
that he would punish Egypt with his hand. This study also will consider instances in
which the hand of the LORD appears alongside soteric usages of the arm of the
LORD motif (e.g., Pss 44:13; 98; Isa 59).
2. All Scripture translations are original to the author unless otherwise noted.
3. James K. Hoffmeier, The Arm of God Versus the Arm of Pharaoh in the Exodus
Narratives, Bib 67 (1986): 37887.
31
4. Ibid., 387. Here Hoffmeier captured the irony of Egypts humiliation: What better
way for the exodus traditions to describe Gods victory over Pharaoh, and as a result
his superiority, than to use Hebrew derivations or counterparts to Egyptian expressions
that symbolised Egyptian royal power.
32
33
34
the motif begins with a summary of the origin of the nation before
expressing confidence that the founder of Israel once more will work in
the present life of Israel as he did at the nations establishment. This
Vergangenheit und . . . gegenwrtige Bekenntnis zur Zuversicht8
structure appears in Pss 44 and 77. The confidence that Israel places in
God appears in the context of community laments that bemoan present
national tragedies. Such a pairing of tragedy and trust is not
contradictory, but petitions God to remedy national disasters through his
arm.
Psalm 44:13
Psalm 44:1 begins with a rehearsal of ancient events that the present
generation has learned from its fathers: God, we heard with our ears,
our fathers recounted to us the deeds that You did in their days, in the
days of old. This statement demonstrates Israels faithfulness to adhere
to Gods command to teach future generations, for the author of Exod
13:1416 and Deut 6:2025 instructs the people that the transmission of
Gods mighty deeds . . . was a religious duty incumbent on all parents.9
The audience, who never experienced such an act of redemption,
bemoans the fact that what they have heard with their ears is tacitly
contrasted with the very different things which they have seen with their
eyes.10
Scholarship is divided on which events are mentioned in Ps 44.
While David C. Mitchell argued that the passage speaks of the Exodus
event,11 Uriel Simon held that the psalm instead celebrates the expulsion
35
36
37
38
phrase ( new song), which occurs only seven times in the OT,31
always finds association with the theme of deliverance.32 The new
song apparently serves the purpose of celebrating the accomplishment
of the revelation of Gods salvation to the entire earth.33
Psalm 98:1 explains the reason why it is appropriate for the
audience to sing a new song. The Israelites could rejoice because of
Gods ( marvelous works). Kidner observed that the verb
translated extraordinary (cf. Jer 32:17) is more than a superlative, but a
way in which to formulate the miraculous interventions of God.34 In
short, the works that the arm of the LORD performs are incomparable.
The word salvation is paralleled with Gods extraordinary
deeds in Ps 98:1, indicating that redemption indeed is the focus of this
pericope. Unlike Pss 44 and 77, though, Ps 98 is not a description of
nationalistic deliverance. Rather, the text declares that all the ends of
the earth have seen the salvation of our God (Ps 98:3), thus affirming
the psalms soteric focus. Consequently, verse 1 attributes the
consummation of Gods soteriological plan for Israel and the Gentile
nations to the arm of the LORD.
A Note on the Significance of Arm Imagery in Isa 4055
The theme of a new exodus permeates Isa 4055.35 Prior to this
segment of the book, the prophet Isaiah focuses on imminent judgment
(Isa 139), but after this he turns his attention to the future hope that the
Lord would effect. By means of his Messiah, God will bring about a
spiritual liberation that will rival the deliverance of the sons of Israel
from Egypt. The four Servant Songs appear within the context of Isa 40
55,36 but the arm of the LORD also figures prominently within this
section.
31. Tremper Longman III, Psalm 98: A Divine Warrior Victory Song, JETS 27
(1984): 269. The phrase appears in Pss 33:3; 40:3(4); 96:1; 98:1; 144:9; 149:1;
Isa 42:10.
32. Ibid.
33. Ellen F. Davis, Psalm 98, Int 46 (1992): 172.
34. Kidner, Psalms 73150, 352.
35. Rikki E. Watts, Isaiahs New Exodus in Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1997),
7984.
36. Isaiah 42:14; 49:16; 50:49; 52:1353:12.
39
40
41
Isaiah 52:10
Isaiah 52:10 belongs to an anticipatory poem (vv. 710) that bears much
in common with Ps 98.47 The passage speaks of a messenger qui
sadresse la population de Jrusalem pour lui annoncer le salut
imminent apport par Dieu.48 The Qumran community seems to have
regarded this herald of Isa 52:7 . . . [as] a messianic figure49 (cf.
11QMelch).
The first verse of the pericope (v. 7) delineates two aspects of the
message. First, the verse connects the concept of ( good news),
with peace. Second, appears once more in v. 7 alongside the
adjective good, which intensifies the force of the word. The result is
that aboundingly joyous news flows from the lips of the herald. In the
LXX , the NT word for gospel, is the translation of
because the terms are semantic cognates.
The watchmen appear for the first time in Isaiah in verse 8,
jubilantly lifting up their voices because they will see with their own
eyes the restoration of Zion. Not only will Jerusalem experience
redemption (v. 9), for all the nations will see the salvation of God (v.
10). According to Isa 51:10, the means by which God will manifest this
salvation is through the baring of his holy arm. Many scholars assume
that this intriguing phrase signifies doing battle, for in battle the soldier
threw back his cloak from his right arm50 for the purpose of us[ing] his
sword.51 Military activity, however, is not the purpose of Isa 52:10.
The baring of the arm of the LORD to the nations is soteric rather
than militaristic because warrior language is absent from vv. 710. The
sense of the passage, further, is that Gods redemption would not be
limited to the descendants of Jacob. J. Ross Wagner said:
42
52. J. Ross Wagner, The Heralds of Isaiah and the Mission of Paul: An Investigation
of Pauls Use of Isaiah 5155 in Romans, in Jesus and the Suffering Servant (ed.
William H. Bellinger Jr., and William R. Farmer; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1998), 217
18.
53. By means of your seed all of the nations will be blessed, because you obeyed My
voice (Gen 22:18). Both the apostles Peter (Acts 3:2526) and Paul (Gal 3:16)
recognized Abrahams seed as none other than Christ.
43
In other words, the one the LORD had hidden in past times ultimately
would be revealed as Gods Messiah.
For this reason, both Isa 49:13 and 52:9 contain a command to
rejoice. In 49:13 the heavens, earth, and mountains break into joy
because Gods people are comforted, while in 52:89 the waste places
of Jerusalem celebrate the fact that God has redeemed Jerusalem.
According to Isa 49, therefore, the servant himself will be the Lords
salvation to the ends of the earth,54 an attribute applied to the arm of the
LORD in Isa 52:10. Just as one rolls up his sleeve in order to reveal his
bare arm, God would reveal his Messiah in due time.
Isaiah 53:1
In order to appreciate the full significance of Isa 53:1, one must
remember the overarching message of chapters 4952: God has
promised to deliver his people from their alienation from him so that they
can indeed become his servants to the world. Now [in Isa 52:1353:12]
he tells the means by which he proposes to effect that deliverance.55
This redemption is made possible through the Servant of God.
In Isa 52:13 God claims the Servant as his own, and this
preparatory statement introduces a pericope that describes aspects of
both the Servants ministry and the response of those who witness his
work. The pronouns he, his, and him appear regularly through
52:1315,56 directing the reader back to their antecedent, the Servant. In
this section of Isaiah, the enigmatic nature of this messianic figure once
again comes to the attention of the audience.
The prophet declares in verse 15 that a mystery will be revealed
to the nations that will cause the kings to shut their mouths. This theme
appeared earlier in Isaiah in passages such as 49:2 as well as 50:6, in
which images of the servant are linked with the themes of hiddenness
54. E. R. Ekblad Jr., Isaiahs Servant Poems According to the Septuagint: An
Exegetical and Theological Study (CBET 23; Leuven: Peeters, 1999), 277.
55. Oswalt, Isaiah 4066, 382.
56. According to the pericope: (1) He will be exalted and lifted up; (2) His
appearance was disfigured more than any man; (3) His form [was disfigured] more
than the sons of man; (4) He will sprinkle many nations; and (5) Kings will shut
their mouths because of Him. The prophet Isaiah employed multiple masculine
pronouns throughout this section so that his audience immediately would realize that he
was continuing his discussion regarding the Servant. This deliberate device ensured
that there would be no question that Isa 53 refers to the kingly, yet suffering Messiah
whom the LORD promised to send in order to provide atonement for the peoples sin.
44
and seeing.57 The verse at hand explains that the Arm of the LORD is the
revelation to be disclosed. No masculine pronouns appear in 53:1
because the Arm of the LORD is substituted for the pronoun him,58 but
thereafter pronouns occur with great frequency once more (vv. 212).
This stylistic element indicates afresh that the Arm of the LORD is Gods
Servant, and his mission is the soteric redemption of Jews and Gentiles
alike.
The implication, then, is that the message of Isa 52:712 is put
into effect in 53:1.59 David J. A. Clines rightly noted that verse 1b, like
verse 1a, contains a rhetorical question expecting a negative answer.60
This stylistic feature indicates that not only must the messianic Arm of
the LORD be revealed, but that he also would be disclosed in an
unexpected way that would startle observers.61
The surprise of the audience stems from two factors. The
Israelites, first, were cognizant that the arm of the LORD was the
instrument by which God expressed his militaristic might. The working
of Gods arm against the Egyptians at the Red Sea (e.g., Exod 15:16;
Deut 4:34; 5:15) had left a lasting impression on the people of God.
57. R. P. Carroll, Blindsight and the Vision Thing, in Writing and Reading the Scroll
of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition (ed. Craig C. Broyles and Craig A.
Evans; VTSup70.1; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 88.
58. The word is a feminine noun, but the gender of the term does not mean that the
arm is feminine. In languages such as Hebrew, the gender of the noun is not always a
case of masculinity or femininity: It is important to understand that feminine nouns
(grammatical gender) do not refer only to feminine things (natural gender) or masculine
nouns only to masculine things. . . . What the gender of a Hebrew noun indicates is the
pattern of inflection it will usually follow. Gary D. Pratico and Miles van Pelt, Basics
of Biblical Hebrew Grammar (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 29. is a good
example of this pattern, for although it is feminine in Hebrew, its Greek equivalent
() is masculine. The Bible recognizes both and (cf. John 12:38) as
messianic, demonstrating that possesses a grammatical rather than a natural gender.
59. N. T. Wright, The Servant and Jesus: The Relevance of the Colloquy for the
Current Quest for Jesus, in Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian
Origins (ed. William H. Bellinger Jr., and William R. Farmer; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity,
1998), 293. The arm of [the LORD] . . . is revealed according to Isa, 53:1, in and
through the work of [his] Servant.
60. David J. A. Clines, I, He, We, and They: A Literary Approach to Isaiah 53
(JSOTSup 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1976), 15.
61. The fulfillment of this prophecy appears in John 12:3739a: But though He had
performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him. This was to
fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: LORD, who has believed our
report? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? For this reason they
could not believe. . . . (NASB)
45
Second, in chapters previous to Isa 51:48 the prophet employs the arm
as the conqueror of Israels enemies.62 To Israels astonishment,
therefore, the Arm of the LORD would [not] rend the heathen,63 but
would seek to redeem them (cf. Isa 52:1053:15).
Isaiah 59
The first section of Isa 59 begins with a charge against Gods people (Isa
59:18). Isaiah explains that their sundry problems did not stem from any
failure on Gods partthe LORDs hand was not short when it came to
deliverance (Isa 59:1). Rather, the peoples hands were defiled with
blood and their fingers with iniquity (Isa 59:3). The prophet Isaiah then
numbers himself among the guilty (vv. 911) by employing the pronoun
we. After the confession of national sin (v. 12), Isaiah describes the
situation in which the people find themselves because of their iniquity
(vv. 1315a): The absence of justice . . . gives evidence of the
completeness of the breach between Israel and God.64
In the following section (vv. 15b16) the text declares that Gods
arm delivered salvation to Him, and [His arms] own righteousness
upheld Him (v. 16b). Odil Hannes Steck observed that die
eschatologische Wende Jahwes unwiderstehlich schnell kommtman
beachte schon die prteritale Formulierung der Heilsinitiative Jahwes.65
The preterite tense of the verbs suggests that at the point at which the
prophet wrote the chapter that God already had begun to take the
initiative in acting to bring about redemption.
In Isa 59:1719 the prophet described the ramification of Gods
work in the world, emphasizing that it would be done with exact
justice.66 Further, Gods covenant with Israel is the heart of Isa 59:20
62. In Isa 30:30 the LORD strikes at Assyria with his arm; the target at which God
directs his arm in Isa 48:14 is the Chaldeans.
63. George A. F. Knight, Servant Theology: A Commentary on the Book of Isaiah 40
55 (ITC; Edinburgh: Handsel, 1984), 169.
64. Daniel Kendall, The Use of Mispat in Isaiah 59, ZAW 96 (1984): 399.
65. Odil Hannes Steck, Jahwes Feinde in Jesaja 59, BN 36 (1987): 54. An English
translation of Stecks quotation reads: The eschatological turn of Yahweh comes
irresistibly fastnote already the preterite formulation of Yahwehs salvation
initiative.
66. J. Alec Motyer, Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC; Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity, 1999), 369.
46
21. This discussion anticipates the new covenant that Jeremiah and
Ezekiel would foretell a century later.67
Isaiah 59 functions in much the same way as chapter 53, which
also deals with the concepts of guilt and forgiveness. Oswalt explained:
Here, as in Isa 53, God must intervene on his peoples behalf. There,
they were helpless before the guilt and alienation that their sin produced,
and Gods arm intervened on their behalf, submitting to the death that
was rightfully theirs and ours.68 The authors of Sanhedrin 98a counted
Isa 59:16 as a prophecy that would find fulfillment at the advent of the
Messiah69 because they understood the Arm of the LORD to be the
righteous messianic figure that God would send at the end of time.
The point of the passage is not to suggest that salvation had to
be postponed until such time as God chose to intervene on behalf of
those who turned to him,70 but that humans are incapable of
manufacturing the salvation that they so desperately need.71 This
theological point is demonstrated by the past tense of the verbs in Isa
59:1617, one of which asserts that God could find no human to
intercede.72 For this reason the LORD purposed that his own arm would
stand in the gap between his righteousness and mankinds wickedness.
Although the triumph of the Arm of the LORD had not yet transpired
when the prophet composed the chapter, the past tense of ( the
[arm] brought victory) in v. 16 serves the purpose of express[ing] what
the Lord has determined upon.73 The redemption was as good as
finished in the mind of God.
67. John C. Whitcomb, Christs Atonement and Animal Sacrifices in Israel, GTJ 6
(1985): 205.
68. Oswalt, Isaiah 4066, 528.
69. Rikki E. Watts, Jesus Death, Isaiah 53, and Mark 10:45: A Crux Revisited, in
Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins (ed. William H.
Bellinger Jr., and William R. Farmer; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1998), 147.
70. Robert P. Carroll, Eschatological Delay in the Prophetic Tradition, ZAW 94
(1982): 56.
71. Kendall, The Use of Mispat in Isaiah 59, 399.
72. See Victor P. Hamilton, TWOT II, 715. Of the forty-four times that occurs
in the OT, four of these occurrences appear in the hipil stem, denoting the act of
intercession. Two of these instances (Isa 53:12; 59:16) depict the Arm of the LORD as
interceding for transgressors, a function which the NT attributes to Christ (cf. Rom
8:34; Heb 7:25).
73. Motyer, Isaiah, 368.
47
48
first instance in which the OT associates the word arm with God. In
this context, the arm of the LORD delivers and redeems the people of
Israel. Since this exact formula appears at least 124 times in the Hebrew
text, and the phrase arm of the LORD occurs in numerous passages, one
must regard the theme as one of the key OT theological motifs.
The final part of the study examined soteriological texts from the
prophetic era that make use of arm of the LORD terminology. The
liberation of the people of Israel from Egypt by means of Gods arm
served as a guarantee of their continued national deliverance in the postConquest era. Furthermore, the idea of physical deliverance provided the
underpinning for the prophets discussion of soteriological deliverance.
Interestingly, a number of texts in the book of Isaiah identified the Arm
of the LORD as none other than the LORDs anointed Servant and hence
function as a messianic appellation.
This theological examination of the development of the arm of
the LORD motif has not exhausted the theme. Space does not allow for an
analysis of the arm as Creator, Divine Warrior, King, and Judge. For the
time being, the contribution of these important texts to the arm of the
LORD motif must remain the purview of a future study.
Biblical criticism has debated for the last two centuries whether or not
to include the Melchizedek episode (Gen 14:1820) with the other
incidents of the story in Gen 14. This article makes the case for the
early integration of Melchizedeks episode in the narrative concerning
Abram recovering Lot and his properties and in the Abraham narrative
cycle as a whole. In order to achieve that, several general issues had to
be addressed: the integrity of the text itself with its syntactic
relationships, literary genre and plot. An investigation of some
particular issues follows: Melchizedeks name, title, and actions, as
well as assessing how well they fit the patriarchal context and the
original plot. Since the debate is complex and multi-layered, various
tools were employed: Hebrew grammar and syntax, form criticism,
narrative criticism, and History of Religions. We found that, as it
stands, Gen 14:1820 is too well integrated in the story of Abraham
and the fabric of its own world to need political agendas motivating its
late addition as various source theories claim.
KEYWORDS:
INTRODUCTION
Critical scholars deny the place of Gen 14:1820 within the larger
context of chapter 14 on various grounds. The abrupt appearance of
Melchizedek in the story of Abraham, among other things, triggered
objections to accepting this fragment as part of the original script.
Although Ps 110:4 and Heb 5:6, 10; 6:4; 7:117 explore Melchizedek
from a theological viewpoint in terms of a priesthood superior to that of
Levi, it does not help to clarify his peculiarity. For this reason
Melchizedek has drawn a lot of attention among interpreters, despite the
fact that he is a transitory character in the patriarchal narratives. The
variety of interpretations he has received throughout the centuries stand
50
51
18
(b)
19 (a)
(b)
(c)
20
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
52
construction [18a]). The other one (20b) is integrated in the poetic lines
of the benediction. Clause 18b is a verbless identification clause. The
non-narrative text is announced properly as direct speech by means of a
quotative frame consisting of two meta-pragmatic verbs deriving from
the roots and ( 19a, 19b). Its lines are organized according to the
principles of correspondence common with poetical parallelism of
thought. In this case the repetition of the verb (qal passive participle ,
19c, 20a) and the name of God (El-Elyon, 19c, 20a) further support the
parallelism.
Horton thinks that the poetic structure of the double benediction
is not perfect due to its inexact parallelism.7 But this could be alternative
parallelism, as Gray proposed earlier,8 or an ABAC quatrain as Watson
more recently defined it.9 Due to the repeated material, lines A (19c) and
A (20a) are almost identical with the exception of the name Abram
which is missing in A and the lamed fronting the name of God in line A.
Examples of verses with alternative parallelism can be found among
those generally accepted as ancient Hebrew poetry (Exod 15:6, 16b; Judg
5:26b with a second reconstructed Sisera).
GATTUNG
In terms of Gattung, suggestions vary from cultic saying,10 ancient
chant,11 blessing,12 Midrash on Ps 110:4,13 to liturgical doxology.14
7. Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition, 16.
8. G. B. Gray, The Forms of Hebrew Poetry: Considered with Special Reference to the
Criticism and Interpretation of the Old Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton,
1972), 6264.
9. W. G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques (JSOTSup
26; Sheffield: JSOT, 1984), 18587.
10. O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (Oxford: Basil Blackwells, 1965),
75.
11. A. Causse, Les plus vieux chants de la Bible (Etudes dhistoire et de philosophie
religieuses publiees par la faculte de theologie protestante de luniversite de Strasbourg
14; Paris: Alcan, 1926), 18.
12. John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (ICC; Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 1910), 269
13. H. H. Rowley, Melchizedek and Zadok (Gen 14 and Ps 110), in Festschrift fr
Alfred Bertholet (ed. Walter Baumgartner, et. al.; Tbingen: Mohr, 1950), 461.
53
______________________________________________________
14. Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 302.
15. C. W. Mitchell, The Meaning of BRK to Bless in the Old Testament (SBLDS 95;
Atlanta: Scholars, 1987), 11518.
16. Computing Aitkens statistics for each verb and noun from the same root, see J. K.
Aitken, The Semantics of Blessing and Cursing in Ancient Hebrew (ANE Studies
Supplement 23; Louvain: Peeters, 2007).
17. Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition, 16869.
18. Aitken, Semantics, 116. Since in Rabbinic Hebrew, and even in some Biblical
Hebrew texts, it can also mean curse when it has God as an object, it can be deduced
that this is a late development. See 1 Kgs 21:10, 13; Job 1:5, 11; Prov 30:11, possibly
Deut 33:11, Pss 10:3; 62:5; 109:28; Job 2:5, 9 (Aitken, Semantics, 114).
19. Mitchell, The Meaning of BRK, 116.
54
character mentioned. Note that the poet of Judg 5 recalls the first line by
repeating it almost identically in the third line (a b c // c // b d a).
(Gen 14:19b)
(Judg 5:24)
(Ps 115:15)
55
relation to his enemies, as in Gen 14, but is optative about future dealings
with them. A more concise formula is preferred in greetings (cf. 1 Sam
15:13).
(Gen 14:20)
(Gen 9:26)
(2 Sam 18:28)
It appears from the above examples, and from the many other
occurrences of such similar utterances (Ruth 4:14; 2 Sam 22:47; 1 Kgs
1:48; 5:21; 8:15, 56; 10:9; 2 Chr 2:11; 6:4; 9:8; Ps 66:20), that blessing
God required a reason expressed by means of a clause introduced by a
relative pronoun. This though could be interpreted as having an
56
57
58
59
verses 12 is reversed and allows switching the focus of the reader from
the marauders to the patriots.35 The names of the Mesopotamian kings
are reversed as well (D E B C), although the repetition is verbatim in
their case.
Third, the author employed repetition only after unexpected
grammatical transformations. By that we do not mean replacing the
introductory formula with a finite verb because that was expected. The
renewed focus on the Canaanite kings required a proper active verb to
describe their involvement in the war (A). Most significant is the change
from the very concise they made war (F) to a more detailed they
waged war against them in the Siddim Valley (F). Thus, a clearer sense
of confrontation and a location are provided. The new rendering has a
new addition as well, four kings against five, which underlines the
possible odds of the outcome, which, after the account of the successful
campaign in Transjordan and the depersonalization of the Canaanite
kings, has only one possible reason: to postpone obvious conclusions.
A
E
F
J
K
(Gen 14:12)
L
(Gen 14:89)
35. Wenham noticed the chiastic reproduction of the kings, Mesopotamian > Canaanite
> Canaanite > Mesopotamian, but did not integrate the switching of the Mesopotamian
kings (Genesis 115, 305).
60
61
62
63
64
have been a practice in antiquity, but who decides what divine attributes
do not follow this practice, since Yahweh is described by many?55
Zedeq as an epithet is easier to accept than a divine name
among scholars of ancient Ugarit. Wyatt takes the noun as a divine
epithet only, rendered as noble god (KTU 1.108 R:13a),56 and makes
no mention of such a deity when he speaks of the Ugaritic pantheon.57
The parallelism between and , functioning as fixed word-pairs in
Hebrew poetry (Isa 1:26; 32:17; 48:18; 60:17), as well as in Ugaritic
poetry, is long attested.58 But the term is also parallel with ,59 and
as far as we know no one looked for such a god. Moreover, the term
appears in the Ugaritic literature in connection with other nouns (e.g.,
attwife, blhusband, lord, and mlkking) and it is advised
that one render the phrase as legitimate/lawful wife/husband/lord.60
This interpretation makes use of the hendiadys principle, when two
nouns are coordinated to express another concept.
Layton provides other examples of compound names constructed
by juxtaposing a common noun to a proper noun denoting a place:
(Num 21:19), and ( Josh 19:33), as well as the throne name
meaning lord of Bezeq (Judg 1:57).61 In these cases Layton
accepts the construct relationship as the sufficient explanation of the
relationship between the two nouns. Consequently, it is possible to
render as king of Zedek where the proper noun stands for a
location or a divinity (possessive genitive).
If is not a compound clause, but a nominal-sentence
name, what type of nominal verbless clause qualifies it? In a
55. Ahuva Ho, Sedeq and Sedeqah in the Hebrew Bible (American University Studies
VII; Theology and Religion 78; New York: Peter Lang, 1991), 4345.
56. N. Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit: The Words of Ilimilku and his Colleagues
(Biblical Seminar, 53; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 395.
57. N. Wyatt, The Religion of Ugarit: An Overview, in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies
(ed. W. G. E. Watson and N. Wyatt; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 52885.
58. W. G. E. Watson, Fixed Pairs in Ugaritic and Isaiah, VT 22 (1972): 464.
59. W. G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques (JSOTSup
26; Sheffield: JSOT, 1984), 327.
60. See KTU 2.81: 2, 11, 20, 31. Cf. Gregorio del Olmo Lete and Joaquin Sanmartin, A
Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition (Handbook of Oriental
Studies: Section 1, The Near and Middle East 67; trans. W. G. E. Watson; Leiden:
Brill, 2003), 779.
61. Layton, Archaic Features, 117.
65
Noah [was] a just man.
You [are] more just than me.
Since we have two nouns and not a noun and an adjective, the
only alternative to the construct relationship (king of justice) is an
identification clause (my king is Zedek or Malki is justice). By
necessity, each of these options implies a theophoric name.63
Unlike Melek Shalem, the name Malki-Zedek has two
peculiarities: it is written with a maqqeph both in Gen 14 and in Ps 110,
and has a connective yod. Compared with this, Melek-Sedom is always
with a maqqeph, with two exceptions (vv. 2, 22).64 Hebrew compound
names usually do not take a maqqeph in the Massoretic tradition of the
Hebrew Bible, but here the Massoretes preferred to keep the two nouns
of Melchizedek as one thought unit.
MELEK SHALEM
This gloss on the name of Melchizedek knew many interpretations across
the centuries. One of the main issues raised concerns the quality of the
second noun . Is it a common noun, an adjective, a proper noun
denoting a geographical location, or a deity?
62. F. I. Andersen, The Hebrew Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch (JBL Monograph
Series 14; Nashville: JBL, 1971), 3134. For identification clauses, see examples #1 ff.,
and for classification clauses see examples #94 ff. Also S. Tatu, The Qatal//Yiqtol
(Yiqtol//Qatal) Verbal Sequence in Semitic Couplets: A Case Study in Systemic
Functional Grammar with Applications on the Hebrew Psalter and Ugaritic Poetry
(Gorgias Ugaritic Studies 3; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2008), 17677.
63. As Roy A. Rosenberg proposed in The God Tsedeq, HUCA 36 (1965): 16177.
See also Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchiresha.
64. Waltke and OConnor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 127, n. 6.
66
67
______________________________________________________
16; J. A. Emerton, The Site of Salem, the City of Melchizedek, in Studies in the
Pentateuch (ed. J. A. Emerton; VTSup 41, Leiden: Brill, 1990), 4572.
70. Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion, 55.2. This theory is embraced by A. Alt, Das
Institut im Jahre 1928, Palastinajahrbuch 25 (1929): 559.
71. J. G. Gammie (Loci of the Melchizedek Tradition of Genesis 14:1820, JBL 90
[1971]: 38596) follows J.T. Miliks suggestion.
72. Emerton, The Site of Salem, 4551.
73. Gammie, Loci of the Melchizedek tradition, 389.
74. Emerton, The Site of Salem, 5569.
75. Margalith, The Riddle of Genesis 14, 5078.
68
and passed near Jerusalem.76 Abram would have preferred the route
through Canaan to the one through Transjordan, since his camp was
loaded with all the prisoners and the animals recovered needed a more
friendly and familiar territory.
Before we conclude this part of our analysis, it is useful to see
how relates to . Traditionally the phrase Malki-Zedek,
Melek Shalem was interpreted as a throne name, followed by a gloss
with reference to the domain of the king. Thus Zedek is a dynastic title
used for the kings of Salem.77 The pattern of the name Melchizedek is
evident in another name that belonged to a king of Jerusalem, namely
Adoni-Zedek (Josh 10). Similarly, was used for the monarchs of
the Beer-Sheba area (Abi-Melek).
Margalith argues that Melek Shalem is just a gloss for Malkizedeq, thus a theophoric name itself for the same person, because
Shalem, Melek/Milku and Zedeq are all theophoric names.78 If all are
theophoric names, how do they relate to one another? Only an
identification clause could explain such an agglomeration of theophoric
names, but are they normal?
For Rowley, the presence of Zedek in a compound name is
proof of a theophoric name, even though that name might have been long
forgotten (e.g., Zedekiah, Jehozadak).79 But these names are theophoric
because they carry the name of Yahweh. Whether Zedek used to be the
name of a god or his hypostasis is as good a speculation as any other. If
the king of Babylon changed the name of Mattaniah into Zedekiah (the
justice of Yah, also a prophetic name in 1 Kgs 22) for a purpose, which
is not necessarily to revive an ancient religious tradition, but to warn the
king in office of his covenantal allegiance to Babylon and the
consequences derived from his oath taken in the presence of Yahweh.
69
The nine kings in Gen 14 are listed by name and have a gloss
with reference to their respective domains. An auxiliary identification
gloss inserted for the anonymous king of Bera (v. 2), makes clear that
these nouns are meant as geographical terms. Therefore, should
be taken as a gloss in reference to Melchizedeks domain.
Given all the above, we believe there is not enough evidence to
offer an alternative to the traditional interpretation of the name
Melchizedek. Thus, would stand as a compound proper name,
having two nouns connected via a hireq compaginis, thus meaning king
of justice.
MELCHIZEDEK: INDIRECT DESCRIPTION
The God El-Elyon
Although the Tendenz during the first half of the twentieth century was to
read [El]-Elyon as a distinct deity superior to Yahweh,80 or as part of a
divine triad alongside Yahweh and El or Shadday,81 there are scholars
80. G. von Rad, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testamenti (TB 8; Munich: Chr.
Kaiser Verlag, 1958), 1:144; O. Eissfeldt, El and Yahweh, JJS 1 (1956): 2537.
Marvin H. Pope (El in the Ugaritic Texts [VTSup 2; Leiden: Brill, 1955], 5557) reads
the fragmentary evidence of the Ugaritic literature as if Elyon is Els grandfather,
although in order to reach that conclusion he has to ignore the witness of the Sujin
inscription where El and Elyon are connected by means of the conjunction w, as in
other Ugaritic compound names like Kothar we-Khasis as well as Qudsh wa-Amrar,
and refers to a single deity. For the Sujin inscription see H. Bauer, Ein aramischer
Staatsvertrag aus dem 8. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Die Inschrift der Stele von Sudschin, AfO
8 (19321933): 116; G. R. Driver, Notes on the Aramaic Inscription from
Soudschin, AfO 8 (19321933): 2036.
81. Levi della Vida proposes a triad on the basis of Aramaic inscription of Sefire (8th
cent. B.C.), where El (Lord of Earth) and Elyon are distinctive deities and part of a
divine triad alongside Shamen. This information concurs with that Eusebius collected
about the Phoenicians (Prep. Ev. 1:10, 1516). Thus, El-Elyon in Gen 14 is for della
Vida produced by merging two gods into one, rather than a theological speculation.
Cf. Levi della Vida, El-Elyon in Genesis 14:1820, JBL 63 (1944): 19.
Morgenstern (The Divine Triad in Biblical Mythology, JBL 64 [1945]: 1537)
supports della Vida, and points out the Mesopotamian triad Anu, Enlil, and Enki-Ea,
and the Greek triad Hypsistos, Ouranos, and Kronos. One god is responsible for each of
the three cosmic planes. In search for other examples of triads in the Bible,
Morgenstern notices other divine names, such as Shadday, and Eloah that appear in
connection with El or Yahweh. His theory is that the Yahwist authors of the biblical
text merged the tradition of the three gods and divine triad, as the activities, powers and
attributes of one universal god. All this happened during the so-called Deuteronomic
Reformation (516490 B.C.).
70
82. D. I. Block, The Gods of the Nations: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern National
Theology (ETSMS 2; Jackson, MS: Evangelical Theological Society, 1988), 14, n. 18;
N. Wyatt, Myths of Power: A Study of Royal Myth and Ideology in Ugaritic and
Biblical Tradition (UBL 13; Mnster: Ugarit Verlag, 1996), 35051.
83. S. B. Parker, Sons of (the) God(s) Myhla(h)/ Myla/ Nwylo ynb, in Dictionary of
Deities and Demons in the Bible (ed. K. van der Toorn et al.; 2nd ed.; Leiden: Brill,
1999), 796.
84. J. L. Kelso, The Antiquity of the Divine Title El Elyon in Gen 14, JBL 20
(1901): 5055.
85. Rmi Lack, Les origines de Elyn, le Trs-Haut, dans la tradition cultuelle
dIsral, JBL 24 (1962): 4464.
86. D. N. Freedman, Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy: Studies in Early Hebrew Poetry
(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1980), 78, 89.
87. The inscription found in the Jewish quarter reads, , that is El, creator
of earth. See P. D. Miller, El, the Creator of Earth, BASOR 239 (1980): 4346.
71
72
92. John Gray, The Legacy of Canaan: The Ras Shamra Texts and Their Relevance to
the Old Testament (VTSup 5; Leiden: Brill, 1957), 153.
93. Juan-Pablo Vita, The Society of Ugarit, in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies (ed. W.
G. E. Watson and N. Wyatt; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 468.
94. See N. Wyatt, The Religion of Ugarit: An Overview.
95. Ibid., 154.
96. Wenham, Genesis 115, 316; V. P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 117
(NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), 408; B. K. Waltke, Genesis: A
Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 233.
97. Although Waltke quoted 2 Sam 17:2729 and Prov 9:5, the former is not a poetic
text, but a list of goods. Similar lists can be found in 1 Sam 10:3, 16:20, 25:18. The
Ugaritic text is quoted from John Gray, The Legacy of Canaan (Leiden: Brill, 1965),
94.
73
74
of all the goods the Mesopotamians plundered from Salem, which Abram
had recovered. This is interpreted accords with a similar gesture by the
king of Sodom afterwards.105 Who is the giver and who is the receiver,
after all? Is this a case of intentional ambiguity? It is very unlikely that
Abram remained idle, without a reply to such a lavish initiative from a
king-priest towards him. It is against his generous, outward approach to
relationships. The text itself demands a reply, if not verbal, then at least a
pragmatic one.106 Besides, we find as an afterthought that Abram has
sworn an oath not to keep any of the booty for himself, and with good
reason, so that nobody can accuse him of capitalizing on others
sufferings (Gen 14:2223). A tenth extracted from the plunder could well
be interpreted as a gift to conclude a treaty between equal parties as in
the covenant between Abraham and Abimelek (Gen 21:27), or as a gift to
deity as the Israelites offered after war (Num 31:4950; 1 Sam 20:26
31).107
Emerton draws attention to the ambiguity of all with reference
to the goods from which Abram extracted the tithe.108 Is it all the spoil
Abram captured from the defeated eastern kings that he tithed or all his
goods foreign and domestic? The same phrase appears in verse 23, but
there it is qualified by that [is] yours. Again Emerton signals a problem
because the gift already offered to Melchizedek should be subtracted
from all that belonged to the king of Sodom.109 If one follows the
story, the context usually makes plain what is apparently obscure. Since
the story was not written for twenty-first-century Europeans, we should
expect that some things desirable for our clarification were not necessary
at all for the primary audience. In order to make good sense of the story,
one should gain all the information scattered in the text and not only
within the one verse.
Therefore, it can be assumedgiven the practice of vowsthat
Abram vowed to keep for himself nothing that belonged to the king of
105. B. Vawter, On Genesis: A New Reading (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977),
199. R. H. Smith (Abram and Melchizedek [Gen 14:1820], ZAW 77 [1965]: 129
53) builds his case on the parallel with the Keret story (Ugarit). Abram himself
received riches from Pharaoh and Abimelek (Gen 12:1020; 20; 21:2233).
106. Although rare, the Bible records situations in which no answer is given.
107. Elgavish Encounter of Abram and Melchizedek, 502.
108. Emerton, The Riddle of Genesis XIV, 408.
109. Emerton, Some Problems, 82.
75
Sodom if God would give him the victory (vv 2223). The enemies were
defeated and the victorious party that included Abram and his Amorite
allies took over all those defeated (vv. 1416). On their way back home,
the army was feeding on the goods recovered (v. 24a). When meeting
Melchizedek, Abram gave him a tenth of his share (v. 20c), and later on,
Abram promised the king of Sodom all that belongs to him from his
share (vv. 2224). Unless the king of Sodom was sovereign over the
other four kings of the Canaanite alliance, so that he expected the return
of all the goods recovered, Abram kept for himself his share from all the
defeated, which included only properties that belonged to the other
Canaanite kings. Thus, the king of Sodom was much poorer than before
the Mesopotamian raid, but not totally impoverished.
IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Scholars continue to be divided on the issues of the historicity and
antiquity of Gen 14. Whereas members of the traditionalist school are
still finding evidence of its antiquity (earlier than J with J glosses for
Wenham),110 representatives of the critical school argue for a late or very
late origin of the text (during the monarchy for Emerton, Deuteronomist
for Astour, and postexilic for Westermann).111 There were times, though,
when even critical scholars were convinced of its ancient origin. At the
turn of the twentieth century, Gunkel declared, The account contains
very ancient information to be considered historical.112
The Jerusalem legitimation hypothesis took the two offices
Melchizedek held at once as justification for two distinct offices held by
two different persons and founders of dynasties at Jerusalem: David for a
dynasty of kings and Zadok for a dynasty of priests. Its aetiological
function hangs by a thread: Zadok must be proven a Jebusite priest coopted by David to share power in the conquered Jerusalem. In order to do
so one must prove that Davids imperial bureaucracy was strongly
controlled so that he could have built for himself a public image of
impeccable virtue and true Yahwism despite his obvious concessions to
110. Wenham, Genesis 115, 307.
111. Emerton, The Riddle, 407426; M. C. Astour, Political and Cosmic Symbolism
in Genesis 14 and in Its Babylonian Sources, in Biblical Motifs: Origins and
Transformations (ed. A. Altmann; Studies and Texts 3; Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1966), 6974; C. Westermann, Genesis 1236: A Commentary (trans.
J. J. Scullion, Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1985), 192.
112. Gunkel, Genesis, 288.
76
113. Skinner, Genesis, 2701; Mark Treves, Two Acrostic Psalms, VT 15 (1965): 81
90; John Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 3048; Bodinger, Lnigme
de Melkisdeq, 303ff.
In 1965, James Sanders published the first edition of the Great Psalms
Scroll of Cave 11 (11QPsa), and in a number of essays following that
publication, outlined his theory concerning the scrolls provenance and
scriptural status.1 The scroll has been dated to ca. 3050 A.D., and is the
largest psalm collection to be found at Qumran.2 The contents of the
scroll include a large portion of psalms from Books IVV in the
1. James A. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Qumrn Cave 11 (11QPsa) (Discoveries in the
Judaean Desert IV; Oxford: Clarendon, 1965); idem., The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll
(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1967); idem., Variorum in the Psalms Scroll
(11QPsa), HTR 59 (1966): 8394; idem., Cave 11 Surprises and the Question of
Canon, McCormick Quarterly Review 21 (1968): 115; idem, The Qumran Psalms
Scroll (11QPsa) Reviewed, in On Language, Culture, and Religion: In Honor of Eugene
A. Nida (ed. M. Black and W. A. Smalley; The Hague: Mouton, 1974), 7999.
2. Peter W. Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms (STDJ 17;
Leiden: Brill 1997), 39.
78
3. For such a summary, and to see some of the major differences in content between the
MT-150 and 11QPsa, see Flint, Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls; cf. Gerald Wilson, The Editing
of the Hebrew Psalter (SBLDS 76; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985); idem., The
Qumran Psalms Scroll Reconsidered: Analysis of the Debate, CBQ 47 (1985): 62442.
4. Flint, Dead Sea Psalms Scroll, 8.
79
80
Sanders and Wilson, he argues that one should not speak of a Qumranic
provenance for 11QPsa; rather, it is better to recognize at least three
major Psalter traditions existing contemporaneously before the Qumran
period.10 He calls these traditions Edition I, Edition IIa, and Edition IIb.
In his proposal, Flint argues that two secondary Psalter traditions
were stabilized in a two-stage process from a pre-existing Psalter
tradition (Edition I), which included only Pss 1/289/92.11 Expanding on
this first edition, Edition IIa (the 11QPsa-Psalter) added the texts most
fully attested in11QPsa, which includes Edition I plus Pss 101151, and
at least Ps 93.12 For Flint, there are at least two other scrolls in the
Judaean desert which evidence this edition of the Psalter:11QPsb and
(possibly) 4QPse.13 At the same time, he finds no evidence that this
edition was compiled by the Qumran community, but that it most likely
came into existence among Jewish sects who advocated a solar calendar
in a period prior to that of Qumran (early 2nd cent. B.C.). Moreover,
given this provenance, the 11QPsa-Psalter must have had widespread use
in early Judaism, far beyond the communities at Qumran.
The second secondary edition of the Psalter, Edition IIb,
originated contemporaneously with Edition IIa, prior to the Qumran
period.14 This edition, however, was used in communities advocating a
lunar calendar.15 Differing from Edition IIa, it expands Edition I by
including Pss 90150, and is most fully represented by the Received Text
(MT-150). Further evidence of its existence is found at Masada (MasPsb)
______________________________________________________
JSOTSup 225; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 6583; idem, The Book of
Psalms in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, VT 48 (1998): 45372.
10. Flint, Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls, 15071.
11. Ibid., 16869. Here, Flint only thinks Edition I included up to Psalm 89, but in
Unrolling he has opened up the possibility that it could have included up to Psalm 92.
12. Flint, Unrolling, 24041.
13. Flint, Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls, 169; cf. idem, 11QPsb and the 11QPsa-Psalter, in
Diachronic and Synchronic: Reading the Psalms in Real Time: proceedings of the Baylor
Symposium on the Book of Psalms (ed. Joel S. Burnett, W. H. Bellinger, Jr., and W.
Dennis Tucker, Jr.; LHB/OTS 488; New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 15766. Key
compositions (Catena, Plea for Deliverance, Apostrophe to Zion) and the sequence 141
133144 show support in 11QPsb, with possible support in 4QPse coming in the
sequence 118104[147]105146.
14. Flint, Unrolling, 233.
15. Flint, Dead Sea Psalms Scroll, 169 n. 82, identifies one such group as the Pharisees.
81
16. Ibid., 170 n. 85. The exact date that the Old Greek (OG) of the Septuagint gained its
shape is difficult to ascertain, though most scholars, following Swete, would date it ca.
200 B.C. In Unrolling, (24041) Flint continues to attempt to create distance between
the OG and the MT-150, not even mentioning it in his conclusion.
17. Ibid., 170 n. 87. He identifies several scrolls with ambiguous support (that is, scrolls
which could support either second edition): 1QPsa, 1QPsb, 2QPs, 4QPsl, 4QPsm, 4QPso,
4QPsp, 4QPsu, and 11QPsd.While most of these scrolls are ambiguous, the contents of
4QPsm, 1QPsa, and 2QPs seem quite unambiguous in their support of the MT-150, even
if they are fragmentary. Moreover, several scrolls, though in partial disagreement with
the MT-150, at least witness to a number of sequences which are present in the MT-150
against the 11QPsa-Psalter.These include 4QPsb (the sequence of Pss. 91103) and 4QPsf
(the sequence Pss. 107-108-109). Unambiguous is not the best term to describe the
textual support of the MT-150 at Qumran.
18. It should be noted that recent scholarship has delineated between scriptural in the
sense of canonical, and scriptural in the sense of a functional and authoritative text
within a community. There is significant debate concerning the canonical status of the
Psalter during this period, and even if the term canon is an appropriate description of
any text prior to ca. 100 A.D. In this article, I am using the term scriptural in the latter
sense, of a functionally authoritative text within a community. For Flint, the question is
which edition of the Psalter was functionally authoritative within the Qumran
community?
19. Ibid., 22324, 227. In Unrolling (24041), Flint also recognizes several other
arrangements of psalms which he does not consider proper editions of the Psalter, but
smaller collections (4QPsb, 4QPsd, 4QPsk, 4QPsn, and 11QapocPs).
20. The term sectarian is used in reference to texts, phrases, and terminology which
have widespread reception and significance by the manuscripts found surrounding
Qumran. Cf. Carol A. Newsom Sectually Explicit Literature from Qumran, in The
Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters (ed. B. Halpern, W. H. Propp, and D. N. Freedman;
BJS 1; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 16787.
82
83
84
(151A-B). Below they are laid out in parallel to help see their
differences:32
LXX
11QPsa
This Psalm is
autobiographical. Regarding
Dauid and outside the number.
[When he fought Goliad in
single combat.]
My hands made an
instrument;
my fingers tuned a harp.
32. LXX translation from A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other
Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title (ed. Albert Pietersma and
Benjamin G. Wright; New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 61920.
11QPsa translation is mostly from Eric Reymond, New Idioms within Old: Poetry and
Parallelism in the Non-Masoretic Poems of 11Q5 (= 11QPsa) (Early Judaism and its
Literature 31; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 55; and Sanders, Dead Sea
Psalms Scroll, 9799. Texts have been underlined to help identify variants and
expansions more easily.
listens.
85
[PSALM 151B]
At the beginning of Davids power
after the prophet of God had
anointed him.
Then I (saw) a Philistine uttering
defiances from the r[anks of the
enemy].
. . . I . . . the . . .
From this layout, one observes that both 11QPsa and the LXX contain
material that the other does not, and often have variant readings of those
parts of the psalm which are parallel. Throughout the past 50 years,
scholarly attention has been fixed on the bulk of this variant material. In
particular, scholars have provided analysis along two main lines: the
textual relationship and/or development between these two versions, and
whether or not there are traces of Orphism in 151A:24.33
33. Concerning the textual relationship between the two versions, see the following:
James Sanders, Ps. 151 in 11QPss, ZAW 75 (1963): 5961; Patrick Skehan, The
Apocryphal Psalm 151, CBQ 25 (1963): 4079; James Sanders, The Dead Sea Psalms
Scroll, 94103; Menaham Haran, The Two Text-Forms of Psalm 151, JJS 39 (1988):
86
______________________________________________________
17182; Smith, How to Write a Poem, 182208; D. Amarma, Psalm 151 from
Qumran and Its Relation to Psalm 151 LXX. English Abstract, Textus 19 (1998): 183
85; M. Segal, The Literary Development of Psalm 151: A New Look at the Septuagint
Version, Textus 21 (2002): 13958; Hans Debel, The Lord Looks at the Heart (1 Sam
16,7): 11QPsa 151A-B as a Variant Literary Edition of Ps 151 LXX, RevQ 23 (2008):
45973.Concerning the influence of Orphism, see the review of the discussion in Debel,
The Lord Looks at the Heart, 46466.
34. Haran, Two Text-Forms of Psalm 151, 172; cf. Sanders, Dead Sea Psalms Scroll,
95.
35. Haran, Two Text-Forms of Psalm 151.
36. Debel, The Lord Looks at the Heart, 466, summarizing Harans position.
37. Ibid., 467.
38. Ibid., 472. This is also suggested in Devorah Dimant, Davids Youth in the Qumran
Context, in Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature (ed. J.
Penner, K. M. Penner, and C. Wassen; STDJ 98; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2012), 114. She
does not seem to be aware of Debels argument.
39. Ibid., 472.
40. Ibid., 472, but cf. pp. 46871. Cf. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll, 56, who describes it as
a midrash on 1 Samuel 16:113.
87
88
______________________________________________________
Qumran Laments and the Study of Lament Literature, in Liturgical Perspectives:
Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: proceedings of the Fifth
International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and
Associated Literature, 19-23, January, 2000 (ed. E. G. Chazon; STDJ 48; Leiden/Boston:
Brill, 2003), 13, 15-16, initially identifies the work as non-sectarian, but in concluding is
not as confident. Hence its designation here as disputed.
45. George W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah: A
Historical and Literary Introduction (2nd ed.; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2005), 145.
46. Ibid., 145.
47. Arnold, Social Role of Liturgy, 181.
48. Ibid., 184.
89
90
53. M. Baillet, Qmran Grotte 4: III (4Q4824Q520) (DJD 7; Oxford: Clarendon, 1982),
7980; Davila, Liturgical Works, 177.
54. Speculatively, the partial-deletion of the phrase may prove an even stronger marker of
self-designation, since the mistake of the scribe would have been to write the epithet of
his community rather than to simply refer to the covenant of Israel.
55. Davila, Liturgical Works, 180.
91
92
still part of the covenant community of Israel. Its use, then, is much
different than that of 1QM, 4Q284, 4Q503, and 4Q501. While 4Q501
line 7 used the phrase in reference to those in Israel who are considered
true members of Gods covenant, in distinction from the rest of the sons
of your people, in Psalms of Solomon 17:15, no such distinction is
maintained.
Considering the above uses of the phrase in our texts above, the
following conclusions are reasonable. First, we can conclude that in the
undisputed sectarian texts (1QM, 4Q284, and 4Q503) the epithet sons
of the/his/your covenant is self-designating and particular to an
exclusive group of Jewish people, synonymous with the members of the
Qumran community.60 Second, in the disputed text 4Q501, the epithet is
also self-designating and is used to differentiate the praying faction from
other Israelite factions. And third, in the non-sectarian Psalms of
Solomon the epithet is used to refer more generally to Israelites (those in
covenant with God) as opposed to foreigners. From this discussion, then,
we can conclude that even though the collocation sons + covenant
( + )can be used in less sectarian ways within early Judaism, when
used by those at Qumran it is a self-designating referent to a particular,
exclusive group (faction) of Jewish people, synonymous with those
identifying with the Qumran community. This would add further
evidence to Strawns previous discovery of sectarian terminology, and, if
true, would further weaken Flints proposal. In what remains of the
article, I will investigate how the phrase is used in Ps 151A-B, and how
its inclusion in the psalm fits within the larger concerns of other sectarian
texts.
PSALM 151A AND ITS QUMRANIC EXPANSION
Psalm 151A can be divided into two general parts: verses 14b and
verses4c7.61 In the first part of the psalm, David is introduced (v. 1) as
60. Another similar phrase is the use of + ( 1QS 5.9; 6.19; 1QSa 1.2; 1Q36 7.2;
4Q258 VI.8; 4Q511 6364.II.5; 6364.III.5).
61. I follow the division by Jean Carmignac, La Formepotique du Psaume 151 RevQ 4
(1963): 37476, and Isaac Rabinowitz, Alleged Orphism of 11QPss 28 312 ZAW 76
(1964): 19697. Reymond, New Idioms within Old, 67, argues for four paragraphs: v. 1,
vv. 24b, vv. 4ce, and vv. 57. Pierre Auffret, Structure littraire et interprtation du
Psaume 151, RevQ 9 (1977): 16388, divides the psalm similarly according to a
symmetrical relationship where David is the passive object of the actions (v. 1), where
David is subject (vv. 24b), where God reacts to David (v. 4ce), and where God is
subject and David the object of the actions (vv. 57).
93
94
95
can give them hope, providing them a picture of their own future. But
one can also observe broader significance than this.
Following Debels reconstruction, the literary expansion of Ps
151 edition n into Ps 151A-B has created a division between Davids
anointing as ruler over the Qumran community and Davids subsequent
military success over Goliath. As noted above, the effect of this division
in Ps 151A was to emphasize the transformation of David from shepherd
over Jesses flock to ruler over the sons of the covenant. The reason for
this transformation was Davids inward desire to give glory to God. His
inclination to praise, then, is what makes him fit to rule over the sons of
the covenant. As a paradigm, Davids praise was meant to instill the
value of worship with those who used this scroll at Qumran. Following
this through, the ideological impact is that just as David was given
dominion over the sons of the covenant through his worshipful deeds, so
Qumran covenanters would be given a special place over the sons of
Israel.
Moreover, just as this David, now the anointed ruler, is able to
slay enemy nations (Ps 151B), so the covenant community is anointed to
lead the battle against Belial and the Kittim (1QM). This interpretation is
more speculative, but it does offer an explanation for why the psalm
might have been divided into two. In this scheme, Ps151A allows the
community to see itself in the coloring of Davids divinely sanctioned
worship, while Ps 151B allows them to reflect on their special calling to
fight as the true Israel, the true sons of the covenant, against the Kittim.
The placement of Ps 151A-B in 11QPsa enhances such a
proposal further. In 11QPsa, Ps 151A-B is the concluding psalm of the
scroll, and is preceded by a non-biblical text enumerating Davids
Compositions (11QPsa 27:211; DavComp), and several verses from Ps
140:15 (11QPsa 27:1215) and Ps 134:13 (11QPsa 28:12).69 For
Sanders, these last columns of the scroll clearly demonstrate the belief
that David composed, or spoke, not only all the psalms in this scroll but
many, many more.70 The final texts included in 11QPsa, then, put all of
the psalms into the mouth of David. By doing so, the poetic and musical
abilities of David recounted in Ps 151A are given further clarification
and can be identified with what precedes Ps 151A in the scroll. Thus, if
the David of Ps 151A-B is a kind of figure or type to be imitated by the
Qumran community, the arrangement of the scroll can be seen as a kind
of liturgical joining with David in his praise, in preparation for the final
eschatological battle.
69. Dimant, Davids Youth, 100.
70. Sanders, Dead Sea Psalms Scroll, 1011.
96
97
75. One might still posit that the tradition represented by 11QPsa has a provenance prior
to Qumran and that the specific manifestation of that tradition preserved by 11QPs a is
something peculiar to Qumran. For the present author, however, it is more likely that the
MT-150 was completed by the end of the third century B.C., that its use was widespread
in early Judaism, especially with its translation into the OG (without Ps 151), and that Ps
151 was included at a later date as a supernumerary psalm, as the manuscript tradition
unanimously indicates (contra William P. Brown, The Psalms: An Overview, in The
Oxford Handbook of the Psalms, 34, who erroneously notes that Codex Sinaiticus
presents Ps 151 as within the 151 Psalms of David. The manuscript clearly reads
.). The Psalms scrolls found in Caves 4 and 11 at Qumran are likely
liturgical collections of psalms, some with more popularity than others (hence, some
scrolls supporting others). If 11QPsa does represent a true alternative Psalter tradition (in
my view it is impossible to determine), then it is one which is peculiar to Qumran,
functioning authoritatively as a liturgical and meditative collection with clear ideological
connections to other undisputed sectarian texts (e.g. 1QM, 1QH).
BOOK REVIEWS
100
BOOK REVIEWS
101
they use the term bound nouns instead of the construct. Their reason
for avoiding jargonthe language is idiosyncratic and archaic (p. 11).
Nevertheless, anyone who wants to study biblical Hebrew seriously will
have to learn some of the specialized language in the field. This texts
approach may be valid from a students perspective, but I am not
convinced that we do service to our students by avoiding such terms.
Failure to do so at the introductory level may lead to confusion for
students later on.
This text is not for everybody, and should be used deliberately
and strategically. Those adopting this book should use it as the primary
textbook for the class. I attempted to adapt this text as a supplement to
another text in my undergraduate Beginning Hebrew class. This did not
work as well as it could have. Further, to use this text, class objectives
must shift from a covering mentality. That is to say, instead of making
the course goal covering up to the strong verb, the instructors goals
must shift toward those like students will be able to read basic Hebrew
texts.
By embracing SLA practices, Cook and Holmstedt have
provided a road map for further work in this direction. Cook and
Holmstedt treat the language acquisition process as a contextual, wholebrained process, and in doing so, they provide a great service to their
students. Beginning Biblical Hebrew is a cool breeze in what has often
been a desert of biblical Hebrew pedagogy.
WILLIAM K. BECHTOLD III
Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
102
BOOK REVIEWS
103
when there are 1,466. It would be far easier for the reader if each note
were to appear on the page where it is actually referenced.
Third, sometimes it is hard to make the connection as to how a
particular cultural example helps us to understand the text better. For
example, how does the Ugaritic incantation on page 110 help us to
understand the bread of adversity? Or how does the comment about a
Neo-Assyrian seal that depicts a god standing on the back of a horse help
enlighten the passage in Isaiah 66:20 where the remnant is returning by
horses (p. 188)? At first it is difficult to see the connection between the
picture of Ashurnasirpal standing by a sacred tree (p.16) and the context
of Isaiah 1:29 which speaks about the trees on the high places that they
have desired; but the general description that follows helps link them
somewhat. The explanation given concerning Isaiah 49:16 suggesting
that this passage does not mean ownership, but a plan for the
reconstructed city as illustrated by the inscribed brick from the palace in
Larsa, is unconvincing (p. 163). Also many examples intended to
illustrate a passage come from significantly different time periods. For
example, on page 9, the Old Babylonian text describing the medicinal
use of oil dates at least 1,000 years earlier. One would hope that in 1,000
years they would have learned much more about the healing properties of
oil; for example, frankincense or other spices may have been augmented
with oil (Tutankhamen [1336-1327] had frankincense placed in his burial
tomb). Having said that, sometimes there is simply a lack of specific
information from the ancient Near East and there is little we can do about
that.
Though most of the vocabulary in this book is geared to the lay
reader, there are certain technical terms that should be defined: extispicy
(prophesying future events by using animal entrails, p. 138);
xenophobia (fear of another nation, p. 166); and Demotic script (a
stage in Egyptian writing, p. 184).
There are also a few needed corrections, such as on page 20 the
impression is technically from a stamp seal, not a cylinder seal. The
depiction of the weighing of the heart on page 29 could use further
explanation so that the reader can more fully understand the illustration:
if the heart is not equal in weight to the feather of truth, it will be
devoured by Ammit (devourer or soul-eater).
There is no doubt that this book fills a niche for the lay reader
that is largely untouched and its numerous illustrations and some of the
cultural materials are invaluable. However, as a commentary for biblical
studies students, it does not provide enough discussion of the text of
Isaiah to be required as the main textbook. Thus it is more likely to be
104
BOOK REVIEWS
105
106
BOOK REVIEWS
107
108
BOOK REVIEWS
109
110
BOOK REVIEWS
111
112
BOOK REVIEWS
113
feature delighting in the will of God and his Torah. Cole identifies this
as an inclusio across the initial division of the Psalter (p. 61). He
examines the structure of the psalm, pointing out the minimal acrostic
pattern and clear structural features marking it off as a clear unit. He then
provides a detailed commentary on the psalm in which he detects a
number of close parallels to Josh 1:78. While he follows the work of
Botha on intertextuality and Ps 1, Cole does not describe the parallels
between Ps 1 and Josh 1 as an intertextual relationship, although one
could easily use the term. In both contexts there is an admonition to
meditate on the Torah both day and night as well as a promise of success
for the man who makes such a commitment.
For Cole, the one who is to meditate on the Law day and night
is the ruler of the people. Since Ps 1 was described by Gunkel as a
wisdom psalm, the verbal connections to Ps 2 were obscured. By
connecting the righteous man of Ps 1 to Josh 1:78, Cole can argue that
Ps 1 is more like a royal psalm, providing further evidence of a
connection to Ps 2. But he goes beyond this by suggesting that Ps 1 looks
forward to a future, conquering king in the pattern of Joshuathe
monarch of Ps 2. Psalm 1 is a description of an eschatological future in
which the wicked will be destroyed and the righteous will be preserved
(p. 78). He finds support for this eschatological reading of the Psalm in
the shape of the Hebrew Canon, where Malachi is immediately followed
by Ps 1. He offers a number of lexical and thematic parallels between
Mal 3 and Ps 1 (p. 73). In fact, with Josh 1:78 as the introduction to the
Prophets and Mal 3 as the conclusion, these themes form an inclusio for
the Prophets as well as an introduction to the Psalter.
Cole provides a similar analysis of Ps 2 in chapter 3. While Ps 2
is certainly different than Ps 1, there is ample evidence of purposeful
juxtaposition of the two. Cole provides a comprehensive list of the verbal
links between Ps 1 and 2. Like the first Psalm, Ps 2 has a number of
overt verbal connectors appearing in the canonical seams of the Psalter
(42, 72, and 89) as well as the conclusion to the book (Pss 14650).
Having shown the close links between Pss 1 and 2 as well as
numerous lexical links to the other canonical seams in the psalter, Cole
examines Ps 3 in his final chapter to show that this Psalm takes up
further topics raised by the first two psalms (p. 163). He provides
numerous verbal links as well as thematic links such as the human King
David threatened by his enemies. The fate of the enemies in both psalms
is similar, for example, and both Ps 2 and 3 begin with similar questions
(why? how long?). This reading of Ps 3 in the light of the first two
psalms has been obscured by Gunkels dismissal of a purposeful
arrangement of the Psalter as well as his description of Ps 1 as a wisdom
psalm and Ps 2 as a royal psalm. The verbal and thematic connections
114
between Pss 12 and Ps 3 indicate that the Psalters order deserves, like
any other book, to be seriously considered on its own merits (p. 157).
This conclusion is not unlike Gerald Wilsons The Editing of the
Hebrew Psalter (Scholars, 1985). Coles motivation to move the study of
the canonical shape of the Psalter out of the long shadow of Gunkel is
commendable and he is able to assemble a great deal of evidence from
Pss 13 for the canonical shaping of the Psalter. But Coles monograph
is only a first step in the exploration of the formation of the Psalter. As
Cole concludes, a similar detailed study of each Psalm is required in
order to determine how they were intentionally arranged.
PHILLIP J. LONG
Grace Bible College
Against the Gods: The Polemical Theology of the Old Testament by John
D. Currid. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013. 153 pp., US $17.99, softcover.
Awareness of the similarities between ancient Near Eastern literature and
the Old Testament is growing in popular culture. More and more
programming on television, not to mention internet sources, addresses
topics of archaeological and ancient textual interest. This comparative
material rarely receives comment in the context of teaching and
preaching in todays evangelical churches. As a consequence, most
Christians, especially young people engaged in university studies, are
clueless what to think when they first encounter these similarities. Currid
writes for this audience, offering a work that is introductory and,
therefore, is designed for those who know little about the topic of
polemical theology (p. 10). He is careful to note that polemics are not
the only relationship between the Old Testament and ancient Near
Eastern backgrounds (p. 141); but this is a dominant literary technique
underlying much of the biblical text. His book, therefore, is a help for
educating the church and broader culture.
Chapter 1 provides a cursory outline of the history of ancient
Near Eastern studies and its relationship to the field of biblical studies
(p. 11). This overview captures the essential movements in clear and
helpful fashion. Currid could have been more careful, however, when
addressing current discussions within evangelical studies. His one
paragraph describing accommodationist hermeneutics lumps together
Peter Enns and John Walton. He concludes that such scholars do not
recognize, to any great degree, the foundational differences between [Old
BOOK REVIEWS
115
116
differences in biblical theology. But in the end, it seems that his radical
distinctions are not much different than the views expressed by
evangelicals whom he has criticized. There is disagreement on whether
ex-nihilo creation is clear in Gen 1 (exegetically, it is only inferential),
but all evangelicals with whom I am familiar would affirm creation exnihilo at the level of biblical theology, even if needing to draw from
outside of Gen 1 to do so. His mention of creation by word in the
Memphite theology needs more elaboration, as this is a key similarity
that often shocks people on first encounter. His contrast on page 46 could
be strengthened by the observation that in this text, the creator-god, Ptah,
is himself identified with the cosmic waters (compound name Ptah-Nun).
Chapter 4 treats the flood account, chapter 5 the spurned
seductress motif in the Joseph narrative, and chapter 6 the similarities
between the birth of Moses and stories of other persecuted children who
rise to fame and power. Currids expansion of discussion in chapter 6
beyond the Sargon legend to include Egyptian and Hittite stories is
particularly helpful. Chapter 7 compares the flight of Moses to Midian
with the Story of Sinuhe. Currid maintains that both utilize a well-known
exile-return motif, only rather than Moses longing for Egypt and
Pharaohs court, he exhibits the opposite of the expected Egyptian
virtues. Whether the ancient audience would have reflexively thought
of Sinuhe when hearing the Moses story is questionable in my judgment,
but the polemical commentary by Exodus on Egyptian values espoused
by Sinuhe would have been stark.
Chapter 8 introduces a little known parallel (p. 97), indeed
new to me. A line in the Egyptian Book of the Heavenly Cow reports
the words of Re: I am that I am. I will not let them take action (p. 100;
referring to humanitys rebellion in The Destruction of Mankind).
Following the lead of Egyptologists Hornung and Fecht, Currid argues
that since both the Egyptian text (Egyptian ywy ymy) and Exod 3:14
(ehyeh asher ehyeh) use the idem per idem formula with similar sound,
morphology, and semantic intent, there is an intertextual play between
Exodus and the Egyptian text. Each reader will need to judge the merits
of this interesting suggestion. The parallel is not close phonetically or
morphologically (contra Currid), but a semantic similarity is there.
Nevertheless, the cogency of any proposed literary allusion is dependent
upon the target audiences sphere of relevance. For me, the association
remains doubtful. The possibility that Yahwehs speech co-opted the
words of Re is difficult in that it assumes a Semitic audience would
appreciate this very subtle, semantic allusion. Currids preferred
explanation, that a Pharaoh polemicized against the name Yahweh (p.
107, 109), is more problematic, since even Currid recognizes that the
BOOK REVIEWS
117
Book of the Heavenly Cow most likely pre-dates Moses (p. 98). Even
if not of Middle Egyptian origin, the appearance of this text in the tomb
of Seti I precludes the possibility if Moses dates to the thirteenth century.
For this suggestion to work, the explication of the divine name using the
idem per idem formula must have existed alongside the name itself in
patriarchal times.
Chapters 9 and 10 consider the Rod of Moses and the parting of
the Red Sea, respectively. As one might have already observed, most of
Currids discussions engages polemics involving Egyptian background.
Considering the preponderance of attention usually given to Canaanite
and Mesopotamian background, this welcome treatment redresses an
imbalance for those already familiar with Old Testament polemics.
However, the final chapter (ch. 10) does offer concise discussion of
several commonly recognized polemics against Canaanite religion.
In sum, I find helpful discussion in Currids book. Explanations
are basic and clear (well-suited to the intended audience). One may wish
for more extensive discussion or inclusion of other examples, but given
the nature of the target audience and the subject matter, this book is of
good length (i.e., brief). It can be read tolerably by a popular audience,
hopefully whetting the appetite for more comparative study that similarly
enriches ones understanding and appreciation of the message of the Old
Testament.
JOHN W. HILBER
Grand Rapids Theological Seminary
118
BOOK REVIEWS
119
120
these issues are not new to anyone who has worked in Hebrew poetry,
her reflections on the translation of certain Hebrew words; the repetition
of Hebrew sounds, verbal roots, and words and phrases; maintaining the
word order of Hebrew poetry; and the use of gender neutral language,
were valuable and to be considered by scholars of the Psalter. Her
insights are providing fodder for the project I previously mentioned
singing the Psalms. Johnstons critique of deClaiss-Walfords paper is
fair and he does find exceptions for most of her suggestions. He seems to
suggest that translation must be on a case-by-case basis. He notes, In
translation there is never a correct version because in a sense we will
always prove the proverb Traduttore traditore (p. 208).
The final part of these collected essays focuses on the Psalms
from the perspective of the past and the present. In two separate papers
John Day and Erhard Gerstenberger deal with the correspondence and
similarities between some of the psalms and other ancient Near Eastern
hymns. Day discusses Ps 104 and Akhenatens Hymn to the Sun.
Gerstenberger opines on the correspondence between Sumerian hymns
and forms in the Psalter. Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Till Magnus Steiner
compare the Psalter to a great house in their essay Problems and
Prospects in Psalter Studies. The authors note that the Psalter in its
final form, is complex and cannot be restricted to viewing it in just one
dimension: we encounter several different corridors and floors, and each
offers infinite opportunities for the reception and delivery of different
messages (p. 241). They suggest that the future study of the Psalter must
be one in which synchronic and diachronic study enlighten each other
(pp. 24849). John Barton provides a postscript for these collected
essays. Bartons insightful comment that seems to be a natural
observation from these essays: I am surprised no one has organized a
theology of the Old Testament around the Psalter (p. 259).
The aim of this collection and the conference from which it came
was to open the door for dialogue between the Jewish and Christian
traditions and their understandings of the Hebrew Psalter. The range of
ideas and issues presented in these papers cover the spectrum of
scholarship related to the Psalms. The dialogue, at least in print, was
considerate and constructive. This volume shows, that in many ways,
there is convergence between the traditions. Yet, the conflict, or maybe
differences is a better word, is just as obvious. These collected essays
are a good example of how listening to those from another tradition
could very well advance the scholarship of any given area of biblical
studies.
Any serious scholar or student of the Psalter should read this
work. A Psalms scholar may not be familiar with some of the material in
BOOK REVIEWS
121
the book, such as Chagalls art or musical notations. Any paper in this
volume may just open a door they did not even know was there to be
opened.
JOSHUA E. STEWART
Luther Rice University
122
In Chapter 3, the authors delve deeper into the idea of the types
of genres. They emphasize that other scholars may categorize the psalms
differently, but the genres they choose are royal, enthronement, wisdom,
creation, historical, Zion, imprecatory, penitential, and liturgical. For
every genre, the Jacobsons give examples of the different psalms and
explain why they match the chosen archetype.
Chapter 4 focuses on the voice and life situations of the psalms.
The authors explain that the psalms were not written by the same author
or in the same time period. They also accentuate that a persona or life
situation defines the meaning of a poetical work. The Jacobsons explain
that the psalmists use a particular persona in order to convey a specific
message. By emphasizing the impact of the persona, the Jacobsons allow
the reader to make a more personal connection to the poems. The authors
describe how the message of popular songs today can change based upon
the life situation of the performer because songs will be expressed
differently based upon the experiences of a particular person.
In Chapter 5, the Jacobsons seek to explain to the reader the
significance of metaphors throughout the Psalms. This chapter analyzes
how the metaphors in the Psalms reveal deep biblical truth by using
familiar imagery. God is not a rock, a literal shepherd that tends sheep, or
a massive light. However, metaphors such as rock, shepherd, and light all
explain aspects of Gods personality and his divine power.
Chapter 6 examines the theology of Psalms. The Jacobsons
illustrate how all the psalms ultimately point to Gods faithfulness, love,
and his role in creation. Since God is all of these things then He is
worthy of praise and songs of trust and thanksgiving. The authors
conclude their book by stating that the psalms are not meant to be studied
or analyzed. Ultimately the authors believe that the psalms are meant to
be read, sung, and experienced.
The casual language of the book may bother more advanced
students of the Old Testament. The book also does not engage debates
about various interpretations of Psalms, nor does it interact with the
Hebrew text. However, the authors make clear that this book is not
intended for scholars, but rather for those who are interested in learning
more about the significance of the psalms. Laypeople will appreciate that
the Jacobsons do not use a plethora of theological terms but explain their
arguments in plain language.
This book would also benefit those who may have trouble
reading the psalms because of cultural and literary barriers. Through the
authors explanation of the significance of the literary styles, the reader
will gain a deeper appreciation of the psalms and poetry. Another goal of
this book is to enlighten the reader on how to experience the psalms as
BOOK REVIEWS
123
opposed to simply reading them. One way that the authors engage
readers is that they allow readers to practice writing psalms based on the
types of examples found in the Bible. These exercises allow the reader to
appreciate the psalms in the Bible as a form of artwork. The book also
contains several case studies that examine biblical songs or modern
songs that challenge the reader to understand the voice, audience, or
theme that the writer intended.
This book would assist young students who are interested in
studying the different types of psalms in the Bible. By analyzing the
Scriptures and carefully explaining their significance, the authors shed
light on questions that a reader may have about the Psalms. This book
provides as a general guide through the Psalms that could be used in
either a personal or corporate Bible study. Old Testament professors may
find that this book provides a textbook to use in their classes as a way of
allowing modern students to engage the psalms on a more practical level.
ROBERT BURGESS
Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
124
BOOK REVIEWS
125
126
BOOK REVIEWS
127
period literature), and the coming of Israels king (the New Testament
writings).
The first section of the book is concerned with Old Testament
expectations of the coming of the Messiah. This section is authored by
Johnston and is comprised of seven chapters that cover messianic content
in the Old Testament books of Genesis, Numbers, Psalms, Amos, Hosea,
Micah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zechariah. There is also a
chapter on the Davidic covenant. The content of these chapters is
described in terms of Messianic Trajectory.
Bateman is responsible for the second section, which is focused
on messianic anticipations/expectations within the Second Temple
period. This section begins with a discussion of four obstacles that need
to be overcome. The first obstacle is that there are limited Second
Temple resources that focus specifically on the concept of messianism.
The second obstacle is that the reader often comes to the Second Temple
period with blurred vision because there is a tendency to read
messianic terminology back into the Old Testament without accounting
for a development of meaning as it relates to the terminology within the
Second Temple period. There is also blurred vision because the church
distanced herself from Judaism in her formative years, which has led to a
lack of familiarity with this period. This has led to the third problem,
which is a lack of historical and social sensitivities of this time period.
The fourth obstacle is the literature of this time period is seldom taken
seriously. The remaining three chapters in this section are concerned
with discussing competing portraits of the Messiah from this time period.
The portraits that Bateman discusses are based upon the designations
used to describe the future Messiah. The portraits that he discusses are:
the one called Messiah, the one called Branch and Prince, and the one
called Son.
The final section of the book is written by Bock and focuses on
the New Testament texts. Bock begins this section with a discussion of
Revelation and the Catholic Epistles and then works backwards in the
remaining chapters. He does this because by working backwards, we go
from ideas that have a larger consensus back to those that are more
disputed (p. 336). This section is concerned with three things: tracing
the term Christ through the New Testament, to make a case for linking
this term and its usage to Jesus himself, and to point out places where the
New Testament uses the Old Testament in an explicit messianic fashion.
After his discussion of Revelation and the Catholic Epistles, Bock then
moves through the Pauline epistles, Acts, and then the Gospels (with a
discussion on the historical Jesus).
128
BOOK REVIEWS
129
130
BOOK REVIEWS
131
132
BOOK REVIEWS
133
works in their own right that are developing theology based on the
events. For example, in the storied approach it is easy to plane out the
differences between Kings and Chronicles. The events are important, but
the writer of Kings may be developing theodicy and penitence, for
instance, while the Chronicler is developing worship and penitential
agenda for their audiences. Of course, this is problematic for those books
that do not fit within the storied category As has been the case
throughout the history of writing biblical theology based on story, there
is a risk of creating a canon of story within a canon and making the other
pieces fit, which usually means losing the contribution of non-storied
sections of the Old Testament to biblical theology. This discussion does
not even take into account the shape of the Old Testament canon and
whether it really reflects a continuous story.
The second dimension of biblical revelation is related to another
key creedal expression in the Old Testament witness. While von Rads
short historical creed is certainly ubiquitous throughout the Old
Testament as a key centre of theological reflection on the Old Testament,
a fixation with this creedal expression seems to miss a second major
creedal formulation in the Old Testament, what I have called the
character creed, that which is found in Exod 34 and which not only
reverberates throughout the Old Testament but weaves its way into the
New Testament as Jesus fully reveals the character of Yahweh in flesh
(e.g., John 1:1418) (Knowles, The Unfolding Mystery of the Divine
Name [IVP Academic, 2012]).
The final concern I have with allowing story to dominate biblical
theology arises from the concern that is apparent throughout Beales
work that he not miss the value of the poetic books of the Old Testament.
I appreciate his honesty at each juncture, and my thought is that his
constant defense reflects an honest concern that he not lose the value of
these key canonical witnesses. But one wonders if he protesteth too
much. One of the dangers of adopting a narrative approach is that while
it does ensure we do not impose modern abstractions to create
propositions, it remains a system that is used to bring order to theology;
it is just a different order. But on the level of genre there are other modes
of theology and I am wondering if it is not time for us to take seriously
the other dominating genre present in the Scriptures: poetry. The
theological implications of poetic forms and expressions have been
explored especially by the Christian interpreter Patrick Miller in his 1994
article The Theological Significance of Biblical Poetry and Jewish
interpreter Stephen Geller in his studies published in 1996 as Sacred
Enigmas: Literary Religion in the Hebrew Bible. John Goldingay offers
further reflections on the theological significance of poetry based on his
studies of Isaiah (Poetry and Theology in Isaiah 5666). These studies
134
BOOK REVIEWS
135
136
When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian
Bible by Timothy Michael Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013,
216 pp., US $24.95, softcover.
Timothy Michael Law is currently an Alexander von Humboldt Fellow
in the Georg-August-Universitt Gttingen, a Junior Research Fellow at
the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies, and Publisher and
Editor-in-Chief of The Marginalia Review of Books. He is also a coeditor of an Oxford University Press series on The Apocrypha in the
History of Interpretation and the forthcoming Oxford Handbook of the
Septuagint.
Although there are encouraging signs that interest in the
Septuagint (LXX) is growing, the Greek OT still receives less attention
BOOK REVIEWS
137
138
only to the rank and file in the church, but even to scholars and church
leaders.
My commendations for Laws book come with some
qualifications. Space permits mention of only three general ones. First,
Law sometimes does not sufficiently make readers aware of thoughtful
opposing viewpoints. For example, certain capable scholars in the field
believe that an OT canon had more solidity prior to the second century
A.D. than Law sees. We do not have to look only to conservative scholars
to find those who would temper Laws suggestion that Talking about
the canon is . . . inescapably retrospective (p. 82). Some would see
Laws tendency to disallow canonical standing prior to the appearance of
later lists to be itself anachronistic. Even if Law gets closer to the truth in
his assessment of the evidence, his book would better serve uninitiated
readers if he acknowledged the existence and arguments of alternative
viewpoints more readily, even if only in endnotes. The purposeful
brevity and intended audience of the book do not entirely excuse this
tendency.
Second, Law too regularly expresses his conclusions in
unrestrained terms when more caution is warranted. The pages teem with
such expressions as spectacularly different message (p. 6),
extraordinarily fluid and multiple divergent textual traditions (p. 31),
extensive textual plurality (p. 80), rich variety of biblical textuality
(p. 84), dizzying variety of textual forms (p. 86), very much in flux
(p. 116), and many diverse theological trajectories (p. 170). The
starkness of such language at times seems to over interpret the evidence.
One example, among others that could receive mention, appears in Laws
discussion of the textual traditions of Ezekiel. He suggests that P967, a
Greek fragment discovered in 1931, may shed light on the earlier form
of Ezekiel. By the end of the same paragraph, Law confidently asserts
that a passage that is missing from this fragment was not originally in
the older Hebrew text (p. 53). Law may ultimately be correct in his
assessment, but he jumps incautiously from acknowledged uncertainty
(may shed light on the earlier form) to confident conclusion (was not
originally in the older Hebrew text). Hector Patmore has rightly urged
caution when comparing P967 with texts found at Masada, suggesting
that unless new materials come to light, there is no credible way of
establishing the historical precedence or originality of either (The
Shorter and Longer Texts of Ezekiel: The Implications of the Manuscript
Finds from Masada and Qumran JSOT 32 [2007]: 242).
Third, Law regularly suggests that the variety of textual
traditions prior to the second century A.D. was normal and
unproblematic for the earliest Jewish and Christian users of Scripture
BOOK REVIEWS
139
(p. 84; cf. 67) and did not disturb the New Testament writers (p. 116).
But he does not adequately demonstrate that NT writers commonly had
access to a variety of text forms or that they intentionally selected
readings from known variations. In fact, Law himself seems to
acknowledge uncertainty about what they had access to. He writes,
Whether or not [NT writers] were aware of the divergences between the
Septuagint and the Hebrew Bible is irrelevant [to the question of the
extent of Septuagintal impact on the NT] and Whether consciously or
not, they were transmitting a message based on a theological reading of
the Jewish scriptures that was often different from the Hebrew Bibles
message (p. 7). If he is unsure about how much access they had to
diverging witnesses, how can he be sure that variations were normal and
unproblematic or did not disturb them? Moreover, if most firstcentury readers/hearers would not likely have had the opportunity to
compare and contrast textual traditions and we cannot yet be certain how
much the NT writers themselves did so, the lack of any indication of a
debate over the textual plurality (p. 86) in that time period cannot prove
much. The concern of Matthews Jesus with jots and tittles may also
strain Laws argument here.
Another matter that gives me pause about Laws assertions on
this point is that, as some in the early church increasingly became aware
of textual variations, especially as they interacted with Jews and their
texts, anxiety did indeed arise. The existence of revisions of Greek
versions toward Hebrew text traditions and of Origens Hexapla testify to
some measure of anxiety over textual variation. Later, as Law himself
acknowledges, many readers were disturbed by Jeromes new
expressions [translated from the Hebrew]. . . . The novelty of Jeromes
language was unsettling to those who would have become comfortable
with the language of the Old Latin [which largely followed the LXX]
(p. 161). Law also points to the bishop of Oea who almost lost his
congregation when he read from Jeromes rendering of Jonah 4:6. They
fumed upon hearing the new translation (p. 164). Law concludes that
this story provides a window into the struggle of parting with the
churchs Bible in favor of Jeromes new translation (p. 164). Such
incidents do not portray a tidy milieu of appreciation for a diversity of
text forms or a lack of concern over textual plurality. Law again does not
handle the evidence cautiously enough when he claims most early
Christians showed no anxiety at the thought of not having the
original and that concern over textual plurality is a distinctively
modern theological anxiety (p. 168).
For these and other reasons, I would encourage readers who are
just beginning to wade into the issues treated here to consult other
perspectives in dialogue with this one. For the important subjects it treats
140
and the clarity and verve with which it treats them, Laws book should be
read by any and all, yet one will want to look elsewhere if a broader
sweep of the field is desired.
KENT CAPPS
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
BOOK REVIEWS
141
all the kings of Israel (ch. 1); a recounting of history in the books
opening poem (ch. 2); portraits of Solomon, David and his sons, and Saul
in Eccl 4 (ch. 3); exile (ch. 4); and the fall of Jerusalem (ch. 5).
Barbours analysis of these five themes is impeccable. She
demonstrates the textual relationships between Ecclesiastes and multiple
other portions of the Scriptures in a way that sheds fresh light on the
book of Ecclesiastes and the potential argument that it is making. Most
interestingly for this reviewer, Barbour demonstrates significant
linguistic overlap between the Chroniclers description of Hezekiah and
the Royal Experiment of Eccl 2. Barbour also highlights the many
linguistic and thematic overlaps between Ecclesiastes and prophetic
literature, a lacuna that Raymond van Leeuwen highlighted some years
ago. Finally, in her conclusion Barbour issues a well-crafted argument
for a Christo-telic reading of Ecclesiastes, stating that, The kingship of
Qohelet has a continuity with the kingship of Christ, anticipating it
positively rather than simply requiring it negatively (p. 182). Her
argument demonstrates how the book speaks to the coming of Christ in a
positive sense, as opposed to the typical Christo-centric reading of the
book as without Christ, everything is meaningless. Her Christo-telic
reading allows the book to be read in its original context as longing for
the King who would finally fulfill all of the Davidic promises. In these
respects, Barbours work is to be praised.
Nevertheless, there are a few issues in Barbours work that
caused me pause. For example, Barbours investigation into allusion in
Ecclesiastes rests on the assumption that the book was written during the
Hellenistic period (pp. 89). One would expect that such a significant
piece of her argument would be demonstrated rather than assumed.
Barbour might argue that her investigation of allusion undergirds her
assumption. Nevertheless, even a cursory treatment of arguments
regarding the books provenance would have been helpful, especially
given that her work argues for echoes of historical memory within
Ecclesiastes. Furthermore, I found it interesting that in her discussion of
city-laments in chapter five, Barbour states:
. . . certainly there are many central city-lament traits missing
from Ecclesiastes, such as the personification of the city, the
issue of Yahwehs agency, the direct address to the deity, or the
question of the citys sin and possible restoration, but the
resemblances particularly at the level of scenery and atmosphere
are marked enough for us to suppose that the book of
Ecclesiastes, while being a very different type of literature, does
draw on city-lament material as part of its literary heritage and
stylistic vocabulary. Generically, these works are completely
142
BOOK REVIEWS
143
few prophetic oracles at a time. Another point worth noting is that The
Books of the Bible does not follow the traditional canonical order but
arranges them according to their assumed chronological sequence. This
is reflected in this guide to the pre-exilic Minor Prophets, which follows
the order indicated by its subtitle.
It is just about possible to use this guide in conjunction with a
traditional version of the NIV, but this is not advisable for two reasons:
(a) readers will not be able to follow up the frequent references to the
introductions to the individual prophetic books found in The Books of the
Bible, and (b) in that version the books natural sections are apparently
marked off by white space. As there are no references to any chapter or
verse numbers anywhere, readers of this guide are told to find passages
with the help of their introductory words, such as Sound the trumpet in
Gibeah or Ephraim is oppressed, trampled in judgment. As the aim is
to read the books in their entirety, this is not too much of a problem, but I
imagine that the reading experience is facilitated by the presence of the
white space included in The Books of the Bible but missing from other
versions.
Smiths guide features some introductory instructions on how it
is best used, including the encouragement to share deeply and agree on
some ground rules, such as confidentiality and respect. It is designed for
the Bible to be studied in community, and it encourages creativity by
inviting people to share responses to the biblical texts in the form of
poetry, journal or blog entries, artwork, dramas, videos, and so on, and
especially the creative retellings that are invited in some sessions (p. 7).
There are twenty-one sessions in this guide, five on Amos, six on
Hosea, four on Micah, and two each on Zephaniah, Nahum, and
Habakkuk. The first session on each book invites readers to read through
the entire book in one sitting before engaging with some general
discussion questions related to the book as a whole. Follow-up sessions
are then designed to take readers through the book again, this time
section by section, enabling deeper engagement with the particular issues
raised by the prophets words.
Each section includes observations, either on the prophetic books
as a whole or on their individual parts. These observations provide
something like a running commentary that is designed to offer some
general guidance to and explanation of the main issues addressed in or
raised by the text.
In my judgment, this is a very worthwhile project, and it
deserves to be widely-known, supported, and adopted. To encourage
Christian communities to engage with the biblical books as communities
and to look at them as books that are to be read and studied in their
entirety is laudable. While I did not have access to The Books of the
144
BOOK REVIEWS
145
146
BOOK REVIEWS
147
148
BOOK REVIEWS
149
commentary could well serve the general reader but only if used in
concert with other reliable interpretive guides.
GARY EDWARD SCHNITTJER
Cairn University
99
101
104
106
109
112
114
117
121
130
134
When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the
Christian Bible by Timothy Michael Law
(Reviewed by K. Capps)
136
144