Feeding, Suffering, Passover, and the Manger

Tonight I was dabbling in Latin and noticed that the word for “feeding” is pasco. This is not remarkable in and of itself, of course, but when we look at the other biblical languages a rather strange event occurs: they all point to Jesus and his death.

When we hear “Away in a Manger” we might as well be hearing “Away in the Fridge” if we have ancient ears. Jesus was laid in a place for food. It was a place for animals to eat from to be sure, but it was literally a “feeder” in Greek, and the verb for eating in French is “manger.” Jesus was stuck in the cupboard, and this is how it should be, since he grew up to claim that he was the food from heaven. But he wasn’t only some kind of heavenly bread (manna) that descended from heaven, he was also the Passover lamb who was sacrificed and whose blood saved his followers (who were the same people who ate him!) from the Angel of Death. This happened on Passover around 30 AD.

This icon of Jesus’s identity is conveyed with the word “Pascha” in the three major languages of the time. He was the Pascha in every conceivable way, and in every major language that a 1st century Jew would recognize. This is remarkable, to say the least.

The title of this post is :

Feeding, Suffering, Passover, and the Manger.

Another way of saying it is:

Pasco, Pascha, Pascha, and Pasco.

The Three Languages

In the 1st century there were three major languages in Palestine: Hebrew/Aramaic, Greek, and Latin. This is reflected in the proclamation posted on Jesus’s cross, written in all 3 languages. We will look at all 3 below, starting with the most ancient.

Hebrew

The term for Passover in Hebrew is pecach (pronounced peh’·sakh). It means what you would think: to pass over. When the writers of the LXX translated the Hebrew scriptures  into Greek they often faced a common linguistic choice: to translate a word literally or aurally. For example, one could translate “Joshua” (“Jehovah is salvation”) as θεός σωτηρία or as Ἰησοῦς. This choice faces the translator most often with proper nouns.

With Passover, it appears the translators chose to translate aurally, using the term πασχα instead of σκεπάσω (to pass over). This choice led to the wordplay which is the subject of this post.

For a Jew, Pascha meant “Passover” but it also meant “to suffer” in Greek. The association was unmissable, even if it was one that was due to translation alone (and therefore a secondary or seemingly random connection). When a Jew who knew Greek (and most did) celebrated the Passover, they could not help but associate it with suffering, since the language of the Roman Empire was Greek.

The Passover got its name from the angel of death “passing over” the houses of the Israelites in Egypt, while visiting all of the Egyptian houses and killing their firstborn. Therefore the feast of Passover/Suffering was when the Israelites were passed over and the Egyptians suffered. The feast was centered around a meal with symbolic foods that called to remembrance the suffering in Egypt and the suffering of the Egyptians that led to the release/salvation of the Israelites. The Israelites were released so that they could go worship God in the desert, receiving the Law from Moses and eating a sacred meal with God.

Greek

It was only with the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures that suffering was explicitly (or literally) equated with Passover. But by the 1st century this had been the case for roughly 3-4 centuries. It was not a new association.

Yet this association took on new depth when Jesus died on Passover/Suffering. One could not help but think that the LXX translation was inspired to foretell this event. When Passover/Suffering was celebrated, Jesus suffered and died as the firstborn Son of God. Yet in the original Passover, it was the Egyptians (sinners) who suffered. With Jesus, he paradoxically is the only innocent one yet is condemned to die. He, as the scapegoat of Yom Kippur, takes the place of the sinners and is punished in their stead. By this, as in Yom Kippur, the punishment that was due to Israel is passed over to another. Jesus dies as the firstborn of sinners even though he is the firstborn of God. This injustice is reversed with his resurrection, celebrated as the feast of Pascha by Christians (later changed to “Easter” in the West).

In other words, the celebration of the death and resurrection of Jesus was called Pascha by early Christians, denoting both the Passover and Suffering of Jesus. How was it remembered? By a ritual meal, insitituted by Jesus just prior to his pascha on the feast of Pascha during the Paschal meal, the Last Supper.

Latin

The significance of pasco for the Bible is this: eating is sacred. The instances of sacred meals in the OT are too numerous to recount here. Beyond this, Jesus invites people to consume him as food, calling himself “the true bread from heaven” (John 6:32). He goes on to say in verse 51:

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Since we are in the Nativity (Christmas) season, it is worth noting that Jesus was born in a “manger.” While we take this as a simple fact that he was born in a trough, the deeper meaning is that he was (in English) born in a receptacle whose name derives from the French term for “eating.” It is, after all, a feeding trough. The Greek term used for manger in the NT, φάτνη, is used only by Luke, and refers only to the place where Jesus is placed after his birth (with the one exception being 13:15). His birth a manger in is in a sense an impromptu accommodation, and in another sense a foreshadowing of his identity as the One Who Is To Be Eaten.

To sum up: in the NT Jesus is born in a “feeder” and to feed in Latin is pasco. This is where Jesus was placed as a newborn, and where he was to be found by the shepherds. They were told that they could identify the child as the one who is in the feeder.

We can add to this that pasco is not a very commonly used word in the Latin NT, but it used after the Resurrection by Jesus in his words to Peter (over a meal!):

So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. (pasce agnos meos)

He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. (pasce oves meas)

He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. (pasce oves meas)

-John 21:15-17

It is actually the case that pasco denotes feeding and shepherding, not merely eating. It is the providing of food, something that Jesus claimed he could do and what he commanded Peter to do. The Greek text of John has the verb ποιμαίνω (to shepherd). Again we have a strange coincidence, in that Jesus was called the Good Shepherd, killed as the Passover lamb, identified as the Lamb of God and the Firstborn of God, born in a feeding trough for sheep, and identified as the food for his own flock. As we can see in the Latin translation above, the word for feed/shepherd is pasce, which is virtually identical in sound to Pascha! (the only difference being in the ending vowel)

Tying the Threads

The feast of Pascha (Passover/Resurrection) follows immediately after Pasco (the Last Supper) and Pascha (the Passover), and is followed by Jesus telling Peter to shepherd/feed (Pasco) his sheep.

The feast of Passover, where the passing over of Israel by the Angel of Death is commemorated, is the feast of Pascha (suffering), the feast of the Resurrection of Jesus who suffered on Passover (Pascha), which is also the feast of Pasco (feeding/eating), the commemoration of the Last Supper where Jesus offered bread and wine to his Apostles in anticipation of his Pascha (suffering) which occurred on Pascha (Passover).

Passover is celebrated by eating symbolic food, and Jesus instituted the Eucharist at a Passover meal, suffering the next day during Passover.

Jesus takes the place of the sinners (the Egyptians) and is killed by the Angel of Death so that Israel may be freed. Israel (Jesus’s followers) is passed over (they are not crucified), and yet this does them no good until they accept his salvation by eating with him after the Resurrection, and thereafter celebrating the Eucharist with others as the symbol of who Jesus and who they now are. Israel, after being passed over, went into the wilderness to commune with God and eat with him, as we see in Exodus 10:8-10, 18:10-12, and 24:3-12 below:

And Moses and Aaron were brought again unto Pharaoh: and he said unto them, Go, serve the LORD your God: but who are they that shall go?

And Moses said, We will go with our young and with our old, with our sons and with our daughters, with our flocks and with our herds will we go; for we must hold a feast unto the LORD.

And he said unto them, Let the LORD be so with you, as I will let you go, and your little ones: look to it; for evil is before you.

 

And Jethro said, Blessed be the LORD, who hath delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians, and out of the hand of Pharaoh, who hath delivered the people from under the hand of the Egyptians.

Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly he was above them.

And Jethro, Moses’ father in law, took a burnt offering and sacrifices for God: and Aaron came, and all the elders of Israel, to eat bread with Moses’ father in law before God.

 

And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do.

And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.

And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the LORD.

And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar.

And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.

And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel:

And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.

And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.

And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them.

Back to the Manger

This all explains why Jesus was laid in a manger (φάτνη, feeder) after being born. It was not merely because there was nowhere else to stash him: it was because he was born to be eaten (manger). He was the Pascha, the One who would make the Angel of Death pass over Israel, the one who would suffer, and the one who would tell his disciples to eat (manger) him in remembrance of his Passover/Pascha, and to shepherd/feed (pasco) his sheep/lambs just as he had.

One last note is in order. The Hebrew term for “manger” or “crib” is ebuwc (“to feed, to fatten”). It is used only 3 times in the OT, the last being Isaiah 1:3

The ox knows its owner
And the donkey its master’s crib; (ὄνος τὴν φάτνην τοῦ κυρίου αὐτοῦ)
But Israel does not know,
My people do not consider.”

This chapter of Isaiah was cited widely by early Christians (see Romans 9:29 for a NT example, and note that Justin Martyr, Ireneaus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian all cite 1:3 in particular), and as the opening chapter of one of their favorite books it was very important.

One cannot help but see the new significance that the second clause takes on in light of Luke’s nativity story: the donkey (the lowly Gentiles and faithful remnant of verse 9 as opposed to unfaithful Israel) now knows the crib/manger of the Lord (note that κυρίου was the Greek rendering of Yahweh (see v.2 as well as meaning “master”). It is the manger of Jesus, the Passover lamb who was to suffer and be eaten. We can even add to this that the Passover lambs were literally put on crosses to support their carcasses, as Justin Martyr points out. Jews were used to seeing Passover lambs sacrificed and cooked on wooden crosses every year! These were to be taken home and eaten for the sacred Passover meal.

 

Anthrax in the Bible: A Burning Issue

(note: normally I use only pictures that I have taken personally, but the image above is taken from the internet.)

 

Don’t let the title scare you: your Bible is not infectious. On the other hand, the Bible does speak of anthrax, although you probable haven’t realized this before. Below we will see just what this means.

What is Anthrax?

When I was growing up, Anthrax to me was a thrash metal band. Later on I associated the word with terrorism due to the anthrax attacks of 2001. I recently spent some time with a person who lived through those attacks. He survived, but as a result all of his possessions were burned as a precaution.

If you don’t know already, anthrax as a disease is deadly and found in herbivores, yet in modern times has been weaponized. The disease’s name derives from an ancient Greek term.

 

Coal

I typically encounter coal in the form of charcoal. Specifically, charcoal briquettes used to cook food on my grill. These are made by taking wood shavings pressed together and then burned in an environment where instead of being burned completely, the oxygen level is regulated so that the carbon structure of the wood is retained. Just like when you have a campfire that burns itself out, resulting in ashes and coal, charcoal is manufactured so that most of the wood is transformed into coal rather than ash.

If you grill a good deal, you might be familiar with natural wood charcoal. Rather than briquettes, these are pieces of wood that have been converted into coal. These pieces are black, of course, but also quite beautiful: they have a slight iridescent sheen to them and you can still see the grain of the wood. They also have a rather interesting sound to them when they are knocked about and when they crack as they catch fire, rather like what I would imagine semi-hollow crystals would sound like (think of the sounds in the crystal cave in Superman).

But we all know that coal is mined as well as made. A few years ago I was walking in the woods and looking for interesting rocks. This was in an area that had arrowheads and various types of quartz in plentitude. I came across a rather light-weight rock which was black and had an iridescent sheen. I had no idea what it was, but after a bit of googling I found out that it was anthracite coal. This type of coal, as opposed to bituminous coal, is rather hard and burns at a much higher temperature.

It was due to this discovery in the woods that I realized that anthrax was coal.

 

The Wider Etymology

Anthracite means “coal-like,” and anthrax (the disease) is so named because it produces boils that resemble coal. Boils, by the way, are so named because the body “boils” (bubbles) these lesions to the surface (just like water boiling). Another term associated with this family of words is carbuncle, a term that denotes both boils (lesions) and a semi-precious stone (red garnet). “Carbuncle” is from carbunculus, a small coal. Additionally, “carbon” is a more modern term that simply means “burning coal” (think of carbo-hydrates, carbu-rater, etc.).

Now that we have established that anthrax and carbuncle are synonymous terms that simply derive from different families of languages, we can look at the biblical evidence.

 

The New Testament

We find anthrax in the NT three times:

Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink:

for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire (ἄνθρακας πυρὸς) on his head.

-Romans 12:20

The above verse is advice given by Paul, and it has always struck me as rather strange. Is the helping of one’s enemy a form of attack? Who wants burning coals on their head, after all? This becomes clearer when we realize that Paul is citing a teaching from Proverbs:

If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink

For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the LORD shall reward thee.

-Proverbs 25:21-22

The burning coals are useful and he is referencing the practice of carrying live coals as a way of transferring fire. Even the tradition of getting coal in one’s stocking at Christmas was originally a sign of good luck and prosperity; coal and fire were good. At any rate, Paul goes on to write in the next verse:

Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

This makes it explicit that the coals were for the benefit of the “enemy,” in spite of their opposition to you.

 

The other two instances in the NT are both from John:

And the servants and officers stood there,

who had made a fire of coals (ἀνθρακιὰν);

for it was cold: and they warmed themselves:

and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself.

-John 18:18

Peter warms himself by a charcoal fire during the trial of Jesus, and there he denies knowing Jesus three times. He is literally and figuratively close to hell in this scene, and his three-fold denial is reversed a few chapters later:

As soon then as they were come to land, they saw a fire of coals (ἀνθρακιὰν) there, and fish laid thereon, and bread.

10 Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye have now caught.

11 Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken.

12 Jesus saith unto them, Come and dine. And none of the disciples durst ask him, Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord.

13 Jesus then cometh, and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish likewise.

14 This is now the third time that Jesus shewed himself to his disciples, after that he was risen from the dead.

-John 21:9-14

The passage continues with Jesus asking Peter three times if he loved him, and Peter’s triple affirmation serves as a balance to his triple denial in chapter 18. This scene plays out around a meal and a coal fire, just as the denials played out over a trial and a coal fire. The coals in scene one were of judgment, while in scene two they are of of life and forgiveness. Peter, in effect, was cooking/judging himself while Jesus was judged in ch. 18, and Jesus was cooking/preparing Peter and the Gentiles while Peter vindicated himself in ch. 21. Just as Paul taught that one should heap coals upon one’s enemy instead of doing them harm, Jesus uses coals to feed and forgive Peter. Peter, the denier of Jesus and therefore his enemy, benefits from the coals and is fed, just as we find in Proverbs and Romans.

 

The Old Testament

Other than Paul and John, we have no NT references to coals. Yet the OT provides us with a background for understanding the meaning of coal in Scripture.

28 Judge none blessed before his death: for a man shall be known in his children.

29 Bring not every man into thine house: for the deceitful man hath many trains.

30 Like as a partridge taken and kept in a cage, so is the heart of the proud; and like as a spy, watcheth he for thy fall:

31 For he lieth in wait, and turneth good into evil, and in things worthy praise will lay blame upon thee.

32 Of a spark of fire a heap of coals (ἀνθρακιά) is kindled: and a sinful man layeth wait for blood.

-Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach 11:28-32

Here we have the “heap of coals” that is strikingly similar to Paul’s and Proverbs’s “heaping coals of fire,” as well as the context of betrayal as in John 18.

We also have coal in the second chapter of Genesis 2:9-12:

And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;

And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. (KJV)

And the gold of that land is good, there also is carbuncle (ἄνθραξ) and emerald. (Br)

The Greek clearly speaks of coal, and it is notable that of the 4 rivers and regions spoken of in Genesis 2, only the first has gold and jewels. The Hebrew has the first “jewel” as being bĕdolach, which means “gum resin.” This calls to mind incense, which is composed of gum resin. The word may derive from badal, a term which means “divide.”

This is meaningful because creation in Genesis occurs by the process of division: God divides the earth from the water, etc. (see Gen. 1:4, 6, 7, 14, 18) The word used is badal. The rest of the many instances of badal in the OT deal with the difference between holy and unholy, Israel and the Gentiles, the Levites and the other tribes, and so on. It has to do with holiness, which is essentially the idea of separation.

But what does gum resin (with a connotation of holiness) have to do with coal? One burned incense (holy resin) on coal, not on regular wood. The smoke was a sign of holiness. So we see that the LXX and Hebrew refer to different substances, but ones that were particularly (and intentionally) linked. Coal is the only “jewel” which is burned, and bĕdolach is burned on it.

In Exodus 28:17-18 and 39:10-11 both mention coal/carbuncle in the context of the 12 stones of the priest’s breastplate that represent the 12 tribes of Israel. In both cases the text of the Hebrew and the Greek differ slightly:

And thou hast set in it settings of stone, four rows of stone;

a row of sardius, topaz, and carbuncle (bareqeth, σμάραγδος) is the first row;

and the second row is emerald (ἄνθραξ, nophek), sapphire, and diamond;

We should note that the English translation above is simply guessing at what the Hebrew words are (as we see in the links), and yet “carbuncle” is anthrax. For our purposes we should simply note that once again ἄνθραξ is here not only a precious ornamental stone, but one that represents a tribe of Israel. Since σμάραγδος is the Greek for emerald it is clear that ἄνθραξ is the first stone in the second row of the breastplate. If we follow the standard order of the tribes, this corresponds to Judah.

The symbol of Judah, the royal tribe, is ἄνθραξ! Jesus, of course, was from the tribe of Judah, as was David. Again, we are talking about coal here, or possibly some otherwise unknown gem that went by the same name as coal.

We encounter this again in Ezekiel:

Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering,

the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald (nophek), and the carbuncle (bareqeth), and gold: (MT)

the sardius, and topaz, and emerald, and carbuncle (ἄνθρακα), and sapphire, and jasper, and silver, and gold, and ligure, and agate, and amethyst, and chrysolite, and beryl, and onyx: (LXX)

the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

Ezekiel 28:13-14

The Hebrew has 9 gems and then gold, while the LXX has 6 gems, silver and gold, and then 6 more gems. The Greek follows the order of the tribal gems in Exodus, while the Hebrew does not (nor is it complete). Whatever led to this difference is hard to ascertain, but it is clear that the Greek text is meant to recall the breastplate of the high priest, as well as the land of good gold and carbuncle from Genesis 2.

The figure described is called the King of Tyre, but the description is that of Satan and Adam (see vs. 9, 12, 13, and 17). This figure is also an “anointed cherub who covers” in the Hebrew, which means the figure is a messiah (anointed one) and an angel who guards paradise (see Gen. 3:24) but more importantly is enthroned above the Ark of the Covenant and covers it (Ex. 25:20). The Greek has “From the day that thou wast created thou [wast] with the cherub:,” a clear reference to Adam.

Other Instances in the OT

We read of various other instances of coal/carbuncle (ἄνθραξ) in the OT, detailed below by theme:

Burning of Incense before God

Leviticus 16:12 mentions the coals that were used by the high priest to burn incense during the Day of Atonement.

 

Divine Epiphanies

2 Samuel 22:9, 13 mention coals in describing the awesome appearance of God, as does Ps. 18:8, 12

Job 41:12 uses very similar imagery in describing Leviathan, whose eyes are like the morning star (Lucifer).

Ezekiel 1:13 and 10:2 there were “coals of fire” in the middle of the Divine Chariot, and 24:11 has God purifying through coals.

Isaiah 6:6 has a coal from the altar before God (in heaven) prifying the lips of Isaiah after he has seen God.

 

Punishment for the Wicked

Ps. 119:4 likens the tongue of the wicked to coals of the desert, and Ps. 139:10 says that coals will fall on them.

 

Danger from the Wicked

Proverbs 6:28 likens a harlot to coals that burn, and Proverbs 26:21 draws a comparison between the hearth for coals and a contentious man for strife.

 

Anti-Idolatry

Isaiah 44:19 speaks of baking loaves of bread on coals made from the same wood used for constructing idols, and Is. 47:14 in a rather sarcastic anti-idolatry theme says “Because thou hast coals of fire, sit thou upon them.”

 

Restitution

Isaiah 54:11-16

11 Afflicted and outcast thou has not been comforted: behold, I [will] prepare carbuncle (ἄνθρακα) [for] thy stones, and sapphire for thy foundations;

12 and I will make thy buttresses jasper, and thy gates crystal, and thy border precious stones.

13 And [I will cause] all thy sons [to be] taught of God, and thy children [to be] in great peace.

14 And thou shalt be built in righteousness: abstain from injustice, and thou shalt not fear; and trembling shall not come nigh thee.

15 Behold, strangers shall come to thee by me, and shall sojourn with thee, and shall run to thee for refuge.

16 Behold, I have created thee, not as the coppersmith blowing coals (ἄνθρακας), and bringing out a vessel [fit] for work; but I have created thee, not for ruin, that [I] should destroy [thee].

 

The final example is hard to categorize: it is a story told deceitfully to King David to try to trick him. The coal in the passage is the woman’s heir, her only surviving son.

And behold the whole family rose up against thine handmaid, and they said, Give up the one that smote his brother, and we will put him to death for the life of his brother, whom he slew, and we will take away even your heir: so they will quench my coal that is left, so as not to leave my husband remnant or name on the face of the earth.

-2 Samuel 14:7

 

Conclusion

The biblical role of anthrax/coal/carbuncle (ἄνθραξ) can be summed up in the following manner:

  1. It is valuable (like a jewel) and represents the tribe of Judah, the royal tribe.
  2. It is useful, the only useful jewel, in fact. It cooks things, melts metals, and primarily burns incense before God.
  3. It is a symbol associated with the divine presence (epiphanies).
  4. It is a symbol of divine judgement.

Because of all 4 of the above points, anthrax is particularly holy. For Christians, we can add that anthrax is associated with Jesus in particular: he is from Judah (1), he is judged and consumed (2), he embodies the presence of God on earth (3), his body was offered as a pleasing sacrifice and incense to God (2), and he will return to judge the earth (4).

Perhaps the next time that you hear of anthrax, you can turn your attention from the evil actions of men who have weaponized it to kill each other and refocus your gaze on Jesus, the one who (as true anthrax) was burned as an offering to God and taught that we should help our enemies rather than hurt them. Anthrax, originally a boon to humanity, now denotes a terrible weapon against our fellow man because of our rejection of Jesus and his teachings. But we can reprogram our minds to see anthrax as a beautiful jewel and symbol of the Messiah who came as a sacrifice, one which accomplished the forgiveness of his own enemies.

 

Thanks for reading!

Was Jesus Really a Carpenter? Part V: Bezaleel Continued

In our last installment we saw that Bezaleel and Jesus shared some very specific characteristics, making their depictions in Exodus and Mark conspicuously similar. The first 3 of the 7 points below were explored, and now we will look points 4-6.

  1. He is from the tribe of Judah
  2. He is filled with the spirit of God
  3. He has wisdom, understanding, and knowledge
  4. God “called him by name”
  5. He is a builder of “the tabernacle of the congregation”
  6. He equips the priests with garments and anointing oil
  7. His name means “in the shadow of God”

God “Called Him by Name”

Bezaleel is introduced as being specifically “called by name,” and as we will see in point 7 his name is a significant one. For now we will focus on the calling itself.

Ex. 31 could have simply said that God chose Bezaleel, but instead God tells Moses that he called Bezaleel “by name.” This emphasis of a divine calling and a particular name is significant in that it sets Bezaleel apart from the other anonymous helpers who built the Tabernacle, and also from Aholiab, who is said to have been “given with him” (“him being Bezaleel). This man is mentioned only in Exodus, and only in the account of the building of the Tabernacle. His name means “father’s tent,” the ab being “father” (like Abba), a term used in the NT for God the Father, and ‘ohel beingtent, the term used for the Tabernacle. In other words, both of the named men are very special: Bezaleel is called by name by God himself, and Aholiab is given by God to Bezaleel. Both men’s names refer to the Tabernacle.

In Mark, the first action of Jesus is to be baptized by John, with the result being that the Spirit descends on him and a voice from heaven calls him “my Son.” This endorsement and naming at baptism in front of a prophet (John) recalls the “calling by name” of Bezaleel in the presence of Moses. God calls from heaven in the presence of the greatest prophet of the time, and instead of commissioning that prophet he calls an unknown character his “son.” This name (My beloved Son) is functional, just as the name of Bezaleel is functional.

Again we see the connection between Mark 6 and Mark 1 (as mentioned in #2), strengthened by the fact that the people were “astonished” (ἐκπλήσσω) by the teaching of Jesus in 1:22 and then astonished again by his teaching in 6:2. While this astonishment is repeated twice more in Mark, the initial occurrence is first repeated in Mark 6:2, forming a conceptual link between the two accounts.

We can add to this that the later 2 occurrences deal with Gentiles being astonished at Jesus’s teaching (7:37) and the Jews in Jerusalem being astonished at his teaching directly after Jesus seems to take control of the Temple in Jerusalem (11:18). Before this episode the Temple is never mentioned by Mark, drawing another connection between Jesus’s astonishing teachings and his identity as Temple builder called by God, as well as the inclusion of the Gentiles into true Temple worship. Jesus can take over the Temple because he is the architect of it, being the Son of God (Mark 1 and throughout) and the new Bezaleel (Mark 6).

To this we can add that “called by name” in the OT is almost exclusively used of people or the Ark or the Temple, all of which are called by the name of God. This means that those “called” are under the authority and protection of God. The Temple is the Temple of God, the people are the people of God.

Here are some of the more significant instances of this:

Isaiah 62:2 And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name.

(alluded to in Revelation 2:17 and 3:12)

Isaiah 65:1 I am sought of them that asked not for me; I am found of them that sought me not: I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my name.

(cited by Paul in Romans 10:21)

This last one is particularly significant because it is found in a passage in Mark we have already discussed:

Jeremiah 7:11 Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, even I have seen it, saith the LORD.

(cited by Jesus in Mark 11:17 when he seized control of the Temple)

Yet the phrase “called out by name” (ἀνακέκλημαι ἐξ ὀνόματος) is used in the OT only twice, both of which refer to God calling Bezaleel. He is totally unique in this way, just as God calls only Jesus his “son” in Mark (1:11, 9:7)

(note: the example in Esther 2:14 in the link above speaks of Esther not coming before the king “unless she should be called by name,” making this significantly different than Bezaleel’s call, not to mention that the [hypothetical] call would be by a king rather than by God.)

 

He is a Builder of “the Tabernacle of the Congregation”

We have already covered this identity of Bezaleel, as well as pointed out how Jesus was seen as accomplishing the same feat (building the Tabernacle) in a metaphorical way, through his teaching and ultimately through his sacrificial death and resurrection. This “built” the Church (the congregation).

The Greek in Ex. 31 is “τὴν σκηνὴν τοῦ μαρτυρίου”, which means “the tent of witness,” but also means “the Tabernacle of martyrdom.” Tent and tabernacle are synonyms, and martyr means witness. Here we find a play on words, where the witness of Jesus as being the Righteous One comes about through his martyrdom, which God honors by raising him from the dead. His body then becomes the tent of witness to the power of God, as well as a symbol for the Church.

Bezaleel also builds the candlestick, the Ark of the Covenant, and all of the cultic items used by the priests in the Tabernacle. These aren’t mention specifically by Mark, but if we recall the incident in the Temple where Jesus kicks out the moneychangers (Mark 11), he also forbid any “vessels” from being carried in the Temple. The term is σκεῦος, used by Mark only in this passage about the Temple and in a parable about the “house of a strong man.”

This term is important in that it refers to the vessels/equipment used in the Temple (it is used like the term “paraphenalia” or “equipment” today). In Exodus 31:7 the “furniture of the Tabernacle” is ὴν διασκευὴν τῆς σκηνῆς. It should also be noted that people were referred to as being a σκεῦος, as in Acts 9:15. Not only that, but σκηνή (tabernacle) seems to be derived from a combination of σκεῦος (vessel/tool) and σκιά (shadow/shade).

The only time that Mark uses the term σκηνή is in the following passage (Mark 9:2-8):

Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John, and led them up on a high mountain apart by themselves; and He was transfigured before them.

His clothes became shining, exceedingly white, like snow, such as no launderer on earth can whiten them.

And Elijah appeared to them with Moses, and they were talking with Jesus.

Then Peter answered and said to Jesus, “Rabbi, it is good for us to be here; and let us make three tabernacles: one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah”—

because he did not know what to say, for they were greatly afraid.

And a cloud came and overshadowed them; and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My beloved Son. Hear Him!”

Suddenly, when they had looked around, they saw no one anymore, but only Jesus with themselves.

This is a particularly rich passage, especially when viewed with Bezaleel in mind.

  1. This is the only passage where Mark uses the term “tabernacle,” and Peter suggests that they build 3 of them. This does not happen, of course, but building the tabernacle is the work of Bezaleel, and so it was fitting that Peter does not build a tabernacle (or three) because this was to be the mission of Jesus alone.
  2. God calls Jesus his Son, just as he called Bezaleel by name. The correspondence is strengthened by the presence of Moses in both accounts.
  3. God calls Jesus his Son in Mark only here and in chapter 1, where instead of Moses being present, John the Baptist is present. But John the Baptist in Mark 1 is the forerunner of Christ, and in Mark 9:11-13 (immediately after the passage above) Elijah as the forerunner is discussed. So in both passages we have John as Elijah, meaning that both times Jesus is called “son” by God, John/Elijah is present.
  4. In both Mark 1, Mark 9, and Exodus 31 the one called (Jesus, Bezaleel) is thought by all to be a lesser figure than the prophet(s) present. Nevertheless, God calls the one who is thought to be inferior and declares him to be utterly unique.
  5. Just as Bezaleel alone can make the holy vestments of the priests, Jesus’s garment is changed miraculously “such as no launderer on earth” could accomplish.
  6. Just as Bezaleel means “in the shadow of God,” the cloud that God speaks from in Mark 9 “over-shadows“(ἐπι-σκιάζω) them and only Jesus remains. Only Jesus emerges from the shadow of God.

We can add to this that while Mark does not tell us what Moses and Elijah were talking to Jesus about, Luke tells us that they were discussing his coming “decease” in Jerusalem (Luke 9:31). The English translation obscures what is really being spoken of: the Greek is ἔξοδος, literally “exodus.” This is another connection to Bezaleel, and indicates that Luke read Mark 9 with an Exodus theme in mind. This word is never used elsewhere by Luke, or any of the other Gospel writers.

The passage tells us that Jesus is the unique one, called by God to build the Tabernacle in Jerusalem through his death. Moses does not have the wisdom or the calling to do it, only Jesus, called by name in the shadow of God.

 

He Equips the Priests with Garments and Anointing Oil

Bezaleel alone has the wisdom to make the priestly vestments and the anointing oil, both of which are considered extremely holy and miraculous. While Mark says nothing of priestly vestments (τὰς στολὰς in Ex. 31) he does mention Jesus’s “garment” (ἱμάτιον) which is miraculous in Mark 9 (discussed above) and elsewhere.

Granting that this is not the exact same Greek word, we nonetheless should recognize that Exodus itself uses various terms for the priestly vestments. Mark uses ἱμάτιον 12 times, while the entire NT uses it 62 times. In the context of the length of the NT, Mark’s usage has the highest rate of occurrence of the term, and we can add to this that Matthew (who uses the term 16 times) depends on Mark for all but 2 of the occurrences. Therefore this term is especially significant for Mark as opposed to the other NT writers.

Ex. 28:4 & 31, and 29:5 mention the vestments of the priests, using the term ποδήρη, which shows us that it is indeed a valid step to include other Greek terms as synonyms for τὰς στολὰς of Exodus 31. It follows from this that ἱμάτιον could be used as a term for the priest’s vestments, and this is confirmed by Lev. 21:10

And the priest that is chief among his brethren, the oil having been poured upon the head of the anointed one, and he having been consecrated to put on the garments (ἱμάτια), shall not take the mitre off his head, and shall not rend his garments (ἱμάτια).

This same usage is found in Numbers 8:7, 21 in describing the consecration of the priests and their vestments. In Numbers 20:28 we read that Aaron, just before his death, took off his ἱμάτια and gave it to his son as a sign of the transference of the high priesthood. It is thus shown very clearly that ἱμάτιον does denote the priestly vestments in the LXX.

Perhaps the most striking usage of the term can be found in Zechariah 3, which we will examine in a later post. For now, we can simply note that the term there refers to the vestments of the high priest Jesus(!) who re-establishes the priesthood in Jerusalem.

In the Mark, the term is used 7 times of the garments of Jesus, 5 of which are in the context of miracles. His clothes are holy, and the last occurrence of the word in Mark alludes to the prohibition of tearing the garment (ἱμάτια) of the high priest (Lev. 21:10). Mark 14:63 and Matthew 26:65 have the high priest breaking this prohibition during the trial of Jesus, although Mark uses the term χιτών while Matthew uses ἱμάτιον.

The oil of anointing that is put on the priests literally makes them a messiah (anointed one). It makes people and things holy, as opposed to the oil used for lamps or cooking. Mark alone recounts that Jesus’s disciples healed through oil, and only in 6:13, following directly after the Nazareth carpenter episode. This healing with oil accompanied their preaching of Jesus’s words, which for Mark brought holiness to the people and was a priestly work. It was laying the groundwork for the true Tabernacle.

Matthew and Luke both mention oil (6 times total) but never in the context of healing with it. This is significant because Jesus in ch.6 picks the Twelve and gives them power over unclean spirits (v.7). He then tells them to take nothing with them except sandals and a staff (v.8-9). It is then said that they preached, cast out spirits, and anointed with oil. It is therefore understood (or hinted at) that Jesus had also given them oil with which to anoint the sick. This anointing with oil is unique to Mark, and found only directly after Jesus is called a carpenter. Not only that, but the superiority of Jesus over the anointing oil is shown in v.5, where Jesus heals with his own hands while his disciples heal with anointing oil obtained from him. Just as the priests are made holy with the oil from the hands of Bezaleel, Jesus provides his disciples with oil to make the people holy. Both Jesus and Bezaleel are the sources of this holiness, by the calling of God.

 

Conclusion

Just as we saw in our previous post, Mark paints Jesus uniquely as the new Bazeleel. It is unbelievable that such unique and precise descriptions could have been made unintentionally, leading us to conclude that Mark did indeed construct his description of Jesus the Carpenter to mimic that of Bezaleel the Architect. This is the meaning of “carpenter” for Mark: the one who uniquely builds the true House of God. In our next posting we will take one last look at Bazaleel, examining what is probably the most striking aspect of his description. Once again, it is totally unique in the OT and corresponds to the unique identity of Jesus in the NT.

Thanks for reading.

 

 

Was Jesus Really a Carpenter? Part IV: The Case of Bezaleel

We have settled on a typological lens to understand how Jesus is a carpenter for Mark, and just what that means. Jesus is the fulfilment of the heroes of the OT, as mentioned in our last post. (note: in my haste I left out two rather important types that Jesus fulfills: Adam and God himself. Apparently they were too obvious for me to take note of!) Below we will look at the first likely referent that Mark has in mind, which deals with the typology of the Tabernacle builder Bezaleel.

 

Bezaleel

Most people are unfamiliar with this seemingly obscure character in the Bible, but he is very important for writers like Mark who wish to portray Jesus as the one who will build God’s true Temple.

Exodus 25-30 has an account of the instructions that God revealed to Moses on Mt. Sinai regarding cultic matters (construction of the tabernacle, priestly consecration, etc.). Following this, chapter 31 states:

1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

See, I have called by name Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah:

And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship,

To devise cunning works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass,

And in cutting of stones, to set them, and in carving of timber, to work in all manner of workmanship.

And I, behold, I have given with him Aholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan: and in the hearts of all that are wise hearted I have put wisdom, that they may make all that I have commanded thee;

The tabernacle of the congregation, and the ark of the testimony, and the mercy seat that is thereupon, and all the furniture of the tabernacle,

And the table and his furniture, and the pure candlestick with all his furniture, and the altar of incense,

And the altar of burnt offering with all his furniture, and the laver and his foot,

10 And the cloths of service, and the holy garments for Aaron the priest, and the garments of his sons, to minister in the priest’s office,

11 And the anointing oil, and sweet incense for the holy place: according to all that I have commanded thee shall they do.

 

Bezaleel is an interesting type of Jesus (or vice versa) in a number of ways:

  1. He is from the tribe of Judah
  2. He is filled with the spirit of God
  3. He has wisdom, understanding, and knowledge
  4. God “called him by name”
  5. He is a builder of “the tabernacle of the congregation”
  6. He equips the priests with garments and anointing oil
  7. His name means “in the shadow of God”

A few coincidences are bound to happen when depicting characters, but as the coincidences begin to pile up and are shown to be rather specific and pointed, we begin to see that this appears to be a deliberate typological portrayal of Jesus as Bezaleel.

Below I will explore the connections between the first 3 points above and Mark’s depiction of Jesus, particularly in the “carpenter” passage in Mark 6. I will privilege the information in Mark because he alone states that Jesus was a carpenter, and to bring the evidence from the whole of the NT would take our attention away from what Mark in particular had to say. In this approach, we will assume the following 3 points:

  1. Paul wrote prior to Mark, and Mark had read Paul’s letters
  2. Matthew, Luke, and John wrote after Mark, and Matthew and Luke had definitely read Mark’s Gospel
  3. if Mark actually sought to depict Jesus as the new Bezaleel for his readers, he would have provided them with concrete clues in his Gospel, rather than vague correspondences

 

Points 1-7 are all repeated in Mark’s description of Jesus, and below the first three are expounded upon:

He is from the Tribe of Judah

While Mark says nothing of Jesus being from the tribe of Judah, no sources ever contradict the claim and it was common knowledge that he was from the line of David and therefore the tribe of Judah. This claim was so strong that Mark felt free to include the seeming denial of this lineage by Jesus himself (see Mark 12:35-37). Jesus’s identity in Mark was a secret (the so-called “Messianic secret“) but he was called “son of David” (10:47-48) and connected to the “kingdom of David” (11:10) nonetheless. So Mark points to the Davidic identity of Jesus, and consequently Jesus must be understood as being from the tribe of Judah. This is made explicit by the amplified accounts of Matthew and Luke, who both affirm through their genealogies that Jesus was from Judah.

Yet many people were from the tribe of Judah, and this in and of itself is a rather weak link. As the links begin to add up, the cumulative argument becomes a strong one. But we are not satisfied with a mere cumulative argument. Is there something more specific (in terms of tribal identity) that links the two men? The answer is yes, in that both figures were the offspring of Judah (the royal tribe) and Levi (the priestly tribe). We will explore this more fully when we get to the implied background of Bezaleel in a future post. For now we should simply notice that both men were Judahites, and both men had Levite blood from their maternal ancestors. They were uniquely qualified to be both kings and priests.

In addition to this we can add that “Judah” appears in Exodus only 4 times. The first is in 1:2, in a listing of all 12 tribes. Nothing too interesting there. The remaining 3 occurrences should pique our curiosity, though: all 3 pertain to Bezaleel! All 3 are also verbatim repetitions of the phrase “Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah.” Judah in Exodus is particularly linked with Bezaleel and his father and grandfather, and is never connected to anybody else.

 

He is Filled with the Spirit of God

It seems like no big deal to be filled with the Spirit of God, given that various saints were filled with the Spirit in the NT, and the phrase in modern Christian parlance if often applied to all Christians. So is it really significant that Bezaleel was filled with the Spirit?

The answer is an emphatic “yes.” The Hebrew word for “filled” (male’) is used 249 times in the OT (stretched over 24 books), meaning that it was a relatively common word. Yet we should notice that the 2 books with the highest number of incidences are Exodus and Ezekiel. Since Ezekiel is longer than Exodus by around 10%, this means that the word male’ is used in Exodus to a conspicuous degree. How is it used?

You can see all of the instances here. Exodus is divided into 40 chapters, and so we would expect 2.3 occurrences of the word every 4 chapters if the distribution was even. Yet we find 16 occurrences in the 13 chapters (28-40) alone, instead of the expected 7-8. This is double the average rate, telling us that something about being “filled” is conspicuous to the last third of the book. The first two thirds of the book contain 7 instances, roughly .26 per chapter, while the last third has 1.23 per chapter. In other words, the final third has about 5 times the rate of the word that the reader would expect. Something is afoot.

You might be wondering “What is the point of all this numerical analysis?” The point is this: I prefer to demonstrate objectively that something is going on in the text rather than going on hunches and feelings. The repetition of “filled” can be objectively demonstrated, and so I prefer to show that rather than have the reader trust (or not trust) that it is indeed an important word in the last third of Exodus.

So how is the term used in this section of Exodus? consider the following:

  1. filled “with the spirit of wisdom” or “the spirit of God” (4x, all referring to Bezaleel and his coworkers)
  2. consecrating actions (6x, 5 of them specifically referring to the priests, made possible by Bezaleel)
  3. setting stones and gems (4x, all in reference to constructing cultic objects made by Bezaleel)
  4. filled with “the glory of the Lord” (2x, both times at the very end of the book, referring to the Tabernacle built by Bezaleel)

The language of being “filled” with the Spirit of God or with wisdom never occurs in the Bible prior to the reference made to Bezaleel. He is the first to be said to have this experience, which is astonishing when we remember that Moses had already been communing with God on Mt. Sinai prior to this. All this information simply drives home that the depiction of Bezaleel is very important in Exodus, and consequently in the entire OT. All of the 16 usages of “filled” listed above refer to the person of Bezaleel or the result of his workmanship.

What can be said about the term “spirit”(ruwach) in Exodus? Interestingly enough, it occurs 11 times in Exodus in the following order:

  1. the “anguish of spirit” of the Israelites (1x)
  2. the wind (6x)
  3. the spirit of wisdom (1x)
  4. the Spirit of God (3x)

As you might have guessed, the spirit of wisdom and the Spirit of God are spoken of only in reference to Bezaleel and his workmen.

In the opening chapter of Mark, the Spirit of God descends on Jesus and drives him into the wilderness (1:10-12). This is striking not only because it is the beginning of Mark’s account (and therefore it is very important in his overall depiction), but because “spirit” never refers to God’s spirit in Mark’s narrative outside of this one episode (the first 3 occurrences refer to the Holy Spirit [1:8, 10, 12], while the other 3 occurrences [3:29, 12:36, and 13:11] all refer to the future events rather than actual narrative action; of the remaining 17 occurrences, 14 refer to demons, 2 to Jesus’s “spirit,” and 1 to the generic spirit of man).

It follows from this that not only are Jesus and Bezaleel endowed with the Spirit of God and the spirit of wisdom, but that they are the only ones who have that spirit. The exception to this is the anonymous others in Exodus who assist Bezaleel, and in Mark 6 directly after Jesus shows his acquisition of the spirit of wisdom (already he was said to have acquired the Spirit of God in ch.1) he goes to different villages teaching (building the Tabernacle) and sends out the (unnamed) 12 disciples (who correspond to the anonymous helpers of Bezaleel). This can hardly be coincidental. Mark depicts Jesus as the unique wise man who has the Spirit of God, a “carpenter” who never is said to build anything literally, but instead goes about teaching with his disciples, who together construct the Tabernacle of God (the Church). This is precisely how Bezaleel is depicted in Exodus.

 

He has Wisdom, Understanding, and Knowledge

This description of Bezaleel is impressive, but is it really that unique to him? Yes, it is! Wisdom (chokmah, σοφία) is mentioned in Exodus 8 times. We might expect that the first wise man in Exodus would be Moses, the main hero of the book. Or perhaps Joshua. But no, it is Bezaleel. 7 of the instances refer to him and his (male) helpers, while 1 instance refers to the women who sewed the Tabernacle curtains. This is quite a distinctive use of a very  general term and worth noting. Wisdom in Exodus is the gift given to the builders of the Tabernacle alone; not even Moses is said to have it.

Wisdom (σοφία) is only mentioned in Mark a single time (6:2), in the same account where he is called a carpenter. This wisdom is “given to him” just as Bezaleel and his helpers were “filled” with it by God. This wisdom is never inherent, but received. Again, it is striking that such a common word is used so pointedly in both Exodus and Mark, and applied to such similar characters.

Understanding (tabuwn, συνετός) is, as you might have guessed, is also exclusively applied to Bezaleel and his coworkers. The first three instances of the word in the entire Bible are in Exodus, and only deal with Bezaleel.

Understanding is never mentioned by Mark, but the opposite (ἀσύνετος) is mentioned in 7:18 “And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also?” By implication, Mark portrays Jesus alone as having understanding since Jesus was said to have amazed the people with his wisdom in chapter 6, and then in chapter 7 his disciples were “without understanding also.” This is surprising specifically because the coworkers of Bezaleel did possess understanding. This goes along with the them in Mark of the ignorance of the disciples, in spite of them being around the great teacher Jesus. No such deficiency was found in Bezaleel’s companions, and so the contrast is heightened by Mark.  While Jesus and the disciples begin constructing the Tabernacle through his teachings during the book, it is only after the Resurrection that the truth is made known and the real construction begins.

Knowledge (da`ath, ἐπιστήμης) is also used conspicuously in Exodus, occurring only twice, and this time referring only to Bezaleel (and not to his coworkers).

Similarly to “understanding,” Mark does not use this term in reference to Jesus but instead uses it in reference to Peter when he denies knowing Jesus and “understanding” what his questioner is asking (Mark 14:68). Significantly, this is the only instance of the word in Mark. The person identifies Peter as being with Jesus “of Nazareth,” and this title is used only 3 times in Mark: in 14:67, in the opening chapter, and in the closing chapter. When we add to this that chapter 6 tells us that Jesus was rejected “in his own country”(Nazareth) we cannot help but notice a connection. Nazareth as a city is mentioned by Mark only in 1:9, but also by implication in Mark 6:1.

 

Conclusion for Points 1-3

We have seen that Jesus in Mark and Bezaleel in Exodus share a common set of characteristics, and these characteristics are unique to both men in the 2 books. The usages of the terms involved is so conspicuous that it becomes an exercise in “faith alone” to see these as mere coincidences. Instead, it appears that Mark intentionally used such pointed terms and depictions to show his readers that Jesus was indeed a new Bezaleel, and uniquely so. Nobody else in Exodus is like Bezaleel, and nobody else in Mark is like Jesus; and they share the same unique characteristics! If the reader is not yet convinced of this, have no fear, because we have another 4 points that show the same striking correspondences.

As always, thanks for reading.

Was Jesus Really a Carpenter? Part III: A Type of Confession

In looking at whether Jesus was really a carpenter I had expected to write a series of three posts: the first would introduce the problem, the second would deal with the linguistic evidence, and the third would give perspective to the evidence and draw a valid conclusion.

Yet, as happens so often in honest research, these plans were thwarted. I found something rather different than what I had expected, and as such I am forced to change directions and follow where the evidence has led me. Below is a a reassessment of where I’m at on the issue.

 

The Historical Jesus

Nothing is quite so fashionable in biblical studies in the past century as the notion of the Historical Jesus. The original question I intended to answer is implicitly tied to historicity: “Was Jesus ‘really’ a carpenter?” implies to the modern reader that the answer will deal with the historical Jesus. He was either “really” a carpenter or not according to what “actually happened” in history.

Yet this approach is fundamentally flawed and ultimately an exercise in futility. We have no reliable way of determining whether Jesus even existed, at least in terms of modern ideas of history, let alone what his day job may or may not have been. Instead, we have literary evidence that tells us a story about a man who lived, died, and lived again. This evidence is therefor outside of the realm of modern history. There is no “objective” (read: reasonably non-biased) data set to even gauge the plausibility of the story, much less the historical veracity of it.

Instead of looking for what “really happened” (a fairly futile endeavor even for modern news stories) we should take the evidence for what it is: a story that is intended to communicate meaning. As such, we might reframe the original question in the following manner: What does it mean for Mark to tell us that Jesus was a carpenter?

In the first two installments of this study we have seen that the modern connotations of “carpenter” do not exactly fit what the Greek of Mark conveys, yet no single English rendering can accurately reproduce the connotations of the Greek. As such, “carpenter” is close enough for our purposes, while we should keep in mind that “builder” and “mason” are close to the mark as well, and perhaps even superior to “carpenter.”

 

Typology

Rather than pursue the dead end approach of the Historical Jesus, we should adopt the narrative logic of Mark. After all, Mark is our starting point for the idea that Jesus was a carpenter. To take his account as historically factual is an ignorant approach and one which disrespects him as an author. Instead we should adopt the well attested and undeniably valid criteria of typological analysis.

The OT writings use genres of myth, prophecy, ancient history, and wisdom literature to convey meaning to their readers. They are constantly self-referential. One cannot understand the ending of the book of Judges, for example, without realizing that the last 3 chapters are a retelling of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. One cannot understand Ezekiel’s contention that Jerusalem is like Sodom without knowing the story of Sodom to which he refers, nor can we understand his depiction of the king of Tyre if don’t notice that it is based on the typology of both Adam and Satan. The Old Testament is a tightly woven set of texts that constantly allude to and at times explicitly cite other texts within Jewish tradition.

Perhaps the greatest living Old Testament scholar today is Dr. Paul Nadim Tarazi. He has demonstrated for several decades the literary meaning of the Old and consequently the New Testaments. Much of the typology and allusion is lost on the English reader since the original languages of their composition (Hebrew and Greek) contain wordplay that cannot be conveyed in English. What was obvious for the original readers of the texts is no longer obvious to English readers.

Tom Dykstra, a protege of Tarazi, has written a brilliant book on Mark, but for our purposes what he says on the issue of genre is important in this article. His thesis is that Mark wrote his Gospel as “scripture.” That is to say that we should not approach Mark as modern history, ancient biography, or even as Homeric epic. Instead, we should approach it as a text self-consciously written as holy scripture, taking on the models of the OT writings rather than merely occasionally quoting from them.

This approach is not confined to the school of Tarazi, although in my opinion he is the leading light of it. Dykstra’s book, for example, is endorsed by the likes of David Trobisch and Thomas Brodie, both brilliant and uncompromising scholars. A scholar who has garnered more attention in the field is Richard Hays. For whatever reason, he has been able to communicate the scholastic validity of the typological/literary approach to the New Testament to a wide range of both liberal and conservative scholars. (I say “for whatever reason” because while Hays is a great scholar and superb writer, he is not as original as Tarazi. Perhaps it is his position at Duke as opposed to the smaller St Vladimir’s Seminary that has afforded him more publicity amongst scholars than Tarazi has received.)

In Reading Backwards: Figural Christology and the Fourfold Gospel WitnesHayes shows the importance of reading the Gospels in light of the Old Testament texts. The authors of the NT consciously wrote with OT literature in mind. We should note here that this approach is hardly novel, but is rather the traditional way that the Bible was read up until the modern period. The novelty that Tarazi and Hays bring to the table is novel only in the context of modern scholarship; the figural or typological approach was always how Scripture used to be read, and we know this from the Old Testament texts themselves. As such we should look for answers to our carpenter query in the Old Testament. We already began this process in the second installation of the series, but now we will do so in a more focused way. In particular, we will look at the theme of fulfilled typologies.

By this we mean the following: in the New Testament, Jesus is portrayed as the fulfillment of all the Old Testament heroes. He is the new Moses, the new David, the new Solomon, the new Joshua, etc.

All too often this thesis is accepted, but never followed to its logical conclusion. For example, the portrayal of Jesus as the new David is beyond question. He is the son of David, the Davidic Messiah, etc. It is all too obvious. Likewise the new Moses theme is in the forefront of the portrayals of Jesus as fulfilling the Mosaic Law, giving the Sermon on the Mount, etc. The Elijah/Elisha story cycles are also found throughout the Gospels and Revelation, and Jesus as the new Solomon is driven home to the reader of the NT quite forcefully and repeatedly. All of these assertions are backed up by plain readings as well as solid scholarship, to the point that no legitimate scholar could possibly object to them. They are that obvious.

But some other typologies have been neglected. One obvious one that is seldom if ever mentioned is Jesus as the new Joshua (son of Nun). This is obvious because both men lead Israel into the Promised Land. Moses never gets to the Promised Land, nor do any people from that generation, with the exception of Joshua and Caleb. Joshua goes on to conquer Canaan and establish possession of the Promised Land. He is the rightful leader and successor to Moses. The first book following the Pentateuch in the Bible is named after him, and it was reckoned as the first book of the Prophets by Jews. What makes this typology painfully obvious is that “Joshua” and “Jesus” are literally the same name. There is not one shade of difference between the two, in spite of the misleading translation in English. No Jew could hear/read the name of Jesus and not think of Jesus the son of Nun, the most famous Jesus in history prior to Jesus of Nazareth.

In the upcoming posts we will see that this typological fulfillment theme extends to two other figures in the Old Testament, ones that are not well-known to us today but were of utmost importance in the 1st century. Not only that, but these two figures were related to each other already within the Old Testament narratives.

I’m willing to bet that although these figures are important and were well-known to first century Jews, if I gave you their names and asked you to describe them you would be as clueless as I was. In other words, this is new information for modern readers.

As always, thanks for reading.

 

Wordplay: Moses, the Son Drawn From the Water

I’d like to start a series of reflections on wordplays in the Bible. It will not follow an alphabetical schema, but will be a conglomeration of individual wordplays and their relevance to the stories of the bible. We will begin with Moses.

Moses

Many people are familiar with the basic story of Moses: he is born in Egypt to Israelite parents at a time when the Pharaoh has ordered the slaughter of all Israelite male infants. He is seen by the daughter of Pharaoh and she rescues and names the child. She then has Moses be raised by his own mother until weaned, at which time he returns to the Egyptian royal court.

Of course, this Moses becomes the chief enemy of Pharaoh and he ultimately helps liberate the Israelites and brings them into the desert. He receives the 10 Commandments on Sinai, leads the people, and intercedes with God to forgive the sins of the people. He is, all in all, the hero of the Pentateuch, and considered traditionally to be its author.

Hebrew or Egyptian?

Moses is a strange hero: he is both Hebrew and Egyptian.

He was from Hebrew stock, and was weened by his mother. This was important, because the breastmilk that a child received was thought to be essential to proper development. We are not talking about scientific ideas of development, but ideas that deal with identity.

Until the Middle Ages it was commonly thought that breastmilk was transmuted blood. Not only are milk and blood both nutritious and important, but it was observed that when a woman is lactating she does not menstruate. It was concluded that breastmilk was transmuted blood, and at least hinted at that the developing child in utero was also transmuted blood, or at least that it was being fed by transmuted blood.

This meant that the child and the mother were “blood brothers,” in a sense. This is fairly meaningless in most cases, but in the case of a child being fed by a woman who was not his mother, this becomes important. Moses was not fed by the Egyptians, but but his mother. He was nourished by Hebrew milk, and he developed as a Hebrew.

Yet as he grew up in the Egyptian court all of his influences (foods) were Egyptian. Not just Egyptian, but also royal. He could have been seen by Hebrews at the time as clearly an Egyptian, and by Egyptians at the time as clearly Hebrew (although his Hebrew identity was in some sources hidden or oblique). In some senses he was accepted by both Hebrews and Egyptians, and in other senses he was rejected by both.

The Meaning of “Moses”

We have briefly seen sketches of the life of Moses without getting into much detail. Yet to understand the name of Moses we need to look at the original mention of “Moses” in the Bible.

“1 And there was a certain man of the tribe of Levi, who took to wife one of the daughters of Levi.  2 And she conceived, and bore a male child; and having seen that he was fair, they hid him three months.  3 And when they could no longer hide him, his mother took for him an ark, and besmeared it with bitumen, and cast the child into it, and put it in the ooze by the river.  4 And his sister was watching from a distance, to learn what would happen to him.  5 And the daughter of Pharao came down to the river to bathe; and her maids walked by the river’s side, and having seen the ark in the ooze, she sent her maid, and took it up.

6 And having opened it, she sees the babe weeping in the ark: and the daughter of Pharao had compassion on it, and said, This [is one] of the Hebrew’s children.  7 And his sister said to the daughter of Pharao, Wilt thou that I call to thee a nurse of the Hebrews, and shall she suckle the child for thee?  8 And the daughter of Pharao said, Go: and the young woman went, and called the mother of the child.  9 And the daughter of Pharao said to her, Take care of this child, and suckled it for me, and I will give thee the wages; and the woman took the child, and suckled it.  10 And when the boy was grown, she brought him to the daughter of Pharao, and he became her son; and she called his name, Moses, saying, I took him out of the water.” (Ex. 2:1-10)

The passage ends with the explanation of the name “Moses”: it appears to mean something like “I took him out of the water” simply by reading the English of verse 10. But does it really mean this?

The Hebrew is Mosheh (מֹשֶׁה), meaning “drawn.” It first appears in Ex. 2:10, as does the first instance of the Hebrew word is from: mashah (מָשָׁה), which also means “to draw.” So it seems that “Moses” means “to draw,” or a similar idea of to be saved, to be drawn out, etc. He has a fitting name for his role in the story, both in his infancy and his adulthood. He is drawn out of the water and saved, then draws the Israelites out of Egypt and the Red Sea, thereby saving them.

Let’s look again at Ex. 2:10, this time with some glosses on word meanings.

“And when the boy was grown, she brought him to the daughter of Pharao, and he became her son; and she called his name, Moses, saying, I took him out of the water.”

How does Moses become the son of Pharaoh’s daughter? It seems that this short phrase tells us that Moses until that time had been the son of his mother, but when older he actually became the son of the Pharaoh’s daughter. It is at this point that we first hear the name of the child, Moses, and it is implied that this transfer of place (Hebrew home to Egyptian court) corresponds to a transfer in family (Hebrew mother to Egyptian mother), economic status/power/education (low to extremely high), and a transfer of name (from an anonymous child to Moses). This is a watershed moment for Moses.

Note that Moses is nursed by his Hebrew mother, but not named by her. This is very strange. It is also strange that Moses would be named by an Egyptian princess, but not so strange as the name being a Hebrew name, giving away the identity of the child. The Hebrews were hated by the Egyptian Pharaoh and people at this time. It makes no sense for an Egyptian to name an adopted Hebrew child (whom she saved from her father’s orders) with a Hebrew name. It is as if she named him according to how she found him, but in a foreign language of a hated people.

Yet it cannot be denied that “Moses” is a fitting name for him, since it alludes to how he was saved from death. So we could take the fact that he was given a Hebrew name as ironic or miraculous. This name would have surely given away his identity, which is the very reason why the Hebrews were being killed at the time. Perhaps this is a literary technique that lets the reader in on a secret while the characters do not seem to notice it. The Hebrew savior was in the court of Pharaoh all along, and obviously so by his name. Yet he is never discovered as being the real threat to the Egyptian throne.

This is the understanding I had of the situation until recently when I came across a most interesting fact: Moses is an Egyptian name.

Etymologies are always open to interpretation, but here there is a consensus that “Moses” is related to the Egyptian ms, meaning “son of.” For example, “Ramses” means “son of Ra.” Moses simply means “son of.”

Yet this is tricky, since the story was written in Hebrew, not Egyptian. On the other hand, Pharaoh’s daughter would have given him an Egyptian name under “normal” circumstances. Let’s look at verse 10 again:

“And when the boy was grown, she brought him to the daughter of Pharao, and he became her son; and she called his name, Moses, saying, I took him out of the water. ”

And now let’s fill in some of the foreign terms with their conceptual equivalents:

Moses as ms (moses): “And when the boy was grown, she brought him to the daughter of Pharao, and he became her moses; and she called his name, Moses, saying, I moses(ed) him out of the water.”

Moses as drawn out: “And when the boy was grown, she brought him to the daughter of Pharao, and he became her son; and she called his name, Drawn Out, saying, I drew him out of the water.”

Moses as son: “And when the boy was grown, she brought him to the daughter of Pharao, and he became her son; and she called his name, Son, saying, I gave birth to him out of the water.”

Drawing Out

We should mention here that the name Moses as “drawing out” is fitting, and indeed it fits a little too well. The root of the Hebrew word is mashah, a word found only 3 times in the Bible. Contrast this with the nearly 800 references to Moses in the Bible, and it becomes apparent just how rare this verb is in the biblical text. But what is really striking is the three usages of the verb.

We have already seen the first: Ex. 2:10 has Moses being named in an apparent reference to mashah as “drawing out.” When we look at the only 2 other occurrences of this verb, an obvious point comes across:

2 Samuel 22:17 “He sent from above, he took me; he drew me out of many waters;”

Psalm 18:16 “He sent from above, he took me, he drew me out of many waters.”

The two passages are identical, but the strangeness doesn’t stop there. It turns out that 2 Samuel 22 and Psalm 18 are identical in all 50 verses. 2 Samuel recounts the song of David that is Psalm 18.

This means that mashah as “drawing out” occurs in:

  1. Only 3 instances in the Bible
  2. Those 3 are reduced to 2 by eliminating duplication
  3. The first explains how Moses both survived and was named (Ex. 2)
  4. The second (and third) are clearly references to the first (Ex. 2)
  5. The “drawing out” is exclusively connected to “water” and God/Pharaoh’s daughter

The Psalm and 2 Samuel do not reference Moses per se, but the righteous person in the character of David. Moses is never mentioned, except in the usage of “drawing out,” which we have seen is almost unknown as a verb in the Bible. It only occurs in 2 separate stories, the first and most important of which is the saving/naming of Moses. It is intimately connected to the character of Moses.

Yet the strangeness does not end there, because the Egyptian interpretation of Moses is “son of.” This means that the connection to water is not coincidental, and can apply to both the Moses story and the song of David:

“He sent from above, he took me, he drew me out of many waters.”

can be rendered

“He (the Lord) sent me (as an apostle) from the highest (heaven); he took me out; he drew me out of many waters.”

The imagery is both of salvation and birth. Bodies of water were dangerous, and being saved from the sea, flood, etc. was an important theme in the Bible. Yet we cannot ignore the fact that infants were thought to come from “heaven” in the sense that their souls were waiting in heaven until their bodies were prepared. They were then “delivered” into the world, but quite literally “drawn out from the waters” of the womb. Salvation and birth coincide here.

Interpretation

Moses, arguably the most important human in the Bible, is introduced in Exodus 2 as surviving miraculously. No super-human intervention is explicit, but the movement from imminent death by command of the Pharaoh to being incorporated into the very family of the Pharaoh is so unlikely that is it implicitly miraculous. The name Moses will dominate the book of Exodus and the entire Pentateuch, and it is here introduced as having a meaning defined by the narrative action.

As we have seen, the meaning of the name is double. He was named by an Egyptian, and the meaning of the name in Egyptian is “son of.” This indicates that Moses is the “son of” Egypt from their perspective. Yet Moses means “drawn out,” and the significance from the Hebrew perspective is that Moses was drawn out/delivered from the waters of birth, then put into the water and drawn out again from the Nile, then drawn out of the court of Pharaoh, and finally he draws out the Hebrew people from Egypt and the waters of the Red Sea. Moses is the Hebrew savior, and the one who is saved by God.

Ultimately Moses is the son of the Hebrews, and the son of God. He saves the Hebrews and just as he was adopted by Pharaoh’s house then by God, the Hebrews had been adopted by Pharaoh’s house (in the time of Joseph, centuries prior to the Exodus) and were then (re)adopted by God.

Given that Exodus was written in a culture where knowledge of basic Egyptian words would have been commonplace, it follows that the author is utilizing both the Hebrew and Egyptian meanings of “Moses” to define his character. His early life foreshadows who he will become and what he will accomplish.

Historical Considerations

You may be asking yourself whether the Moses’ name was really “Moses,” given that it serves a rhetorical purpose in the narrative. Was he perhaps named something else, but the author of Exodus changed his name to suit the story?

We simply cannot know, but there is little reason to think that he name was invented by the author. If Moses was raised as an Egyptian after an initial upbringing as a Hebrew (until perhaps 2-6 years old when he was weaned), then it could be assumed that his Egyptian name would have likely contained the element “son of” (ms). The irony of Moses being “son of” Egypt would have been welcomed by the author, as would the Hebrew meaning of the Egyptian word, being “drawn out.” The wordplay was too good to pass over (pun intended).

Compassion and Beauty

Two final issues should be noted here: the role of compassion and the typology of Moses as a holy person. Both are significant to the identity of Moses.

“Compassion” (חָמַל chamal) is found in the Pentateuch only twice: in Exodus 2:6 where the daughter of Pharaoh has compassion on the crying infant Moses, and Dt. 13:8. Below are verses 1-10 for context:

“1 Every word that I command you this day, it shalt thou observe to do: thou shalt not add to it, nor diminish from it.  2 And if there arise within thee a prophet, or one who dreams a dream, and he gives thee a sign or a wonder,  3 and the sign or the wonder come to pass which he spoke to thee, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye know not;  4 ye shall not hearken to the words of that prophet, or the dreamer of that dream, because the Lord thy God tries you, to know whether ye love your God with all your heart and with all your soul.  5 Ye shall follow the Lord your God, and fear him, and ye shall hear his voice, and attach yourselves to him.  6 And that prophet or that dreamer of a dream, shall die; for he has spoken to make thee err from the Lord thy God who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, who redeemed thee from bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in: so shalt thou abolish the evil from among you.

7 And if thy brother by thy father or mother, or thy son, or daughter, or thy wife in thy bosom, or friend who is equal to thine own soul, entreat thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known,  8 of the gods of the nations that are round about you, who are near thee or at a distance from thee, from one end of the earth to the other;  9 thou shalt not consent to him, neither shalt thou hearken to him; and thine eye shall not spare him, thou shalt feel no regret for him, neither shalt thou at all protect him:  10 thou shalt surely report concerning him, and thy hands shall be upon him among the first to slay him, and the hands of all the people at the last.  11 And they shall stone him with stones, and he shall die, because he sought to draw thee away from the Lord thy God who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.”

The passage is about false prophets. The first section is about prophets proper, who show signs and wonders and give messages. This is what Moses did, and he was the first to do so in the Bible (excepting possibly Joseph, the other Hebrew who was in the court of Pharaoh and the savior of Israel). If a prophet counsels idolatry, they are false and are to be killed. They are an anti-Moses, worthy to be killed rather than saved because they kill the people rather than saving them.

Then the focus shifts to “regular” people: family and friends. The reader is not to have compassion on them, but to kill them. The reason is the same, but the idea of pity is inserted because we are talking about family members and not leaders/prophets. This familial compassion is what saved Moses, but ironically it was done by an Egyptian whose act of “compassion” (suffering with) on the Hebrew was what led to the suffering (passion) of the Egyptians. The Israelites had suffered under the Egyptians, and by the compassion of Pharaoh’s daughter the Egyptians experienced a passion.

Yet the Israelites are not to make that same mistake. Their enemies, the idolaters, will kill them (spiritually) if they are sympathized with. They will be their downfall, just as Moses was the downfall of Egypt. Moses, of course, was worthy to be saved and the Egyptians were justly punished, while the false prophets are not worthy of salvation and those who spare them are worthy of punishment.

The second issue is the physical beauty of Moses. This is a common theme in the extra-canonical literature, but in the Pentateuch it is especially prominent in Joseph and Moses. These two characters are also the only ones who are part of the court of Pharaoh and both save Israel. It is stated that Moses’ mother “conceived, and bore a male child; and having seen that he was fair, they hid him three months.” She hid him seemingly because of his good looks, a quality so important that it was mentioned only after his gender. This probably also helped Pharaoh’s daughter pity him, since an ugly child is an object of derision rather than pity. Moses was attractive from birth, and this helped him survive. The same was said of Joseph, whose good looks figured prominently in his story.

Conclusion

Moses is “Moses,” whether that means that he is the “son of” Paharaoh’s daughter (the Egyptian perspective) or that he was “drawn out” of the water (the Hebrew perspective). Any way you look at it, he is “Moses.” While reckoned as a son of an Egyptian, he drew out the Hebrews from the chaotic waters of Egypt. He also made the Hebrews sons of God,  as we read in Hosea 11:1, which begins with a reference to the Exodus:

“Early in the morning were they cast off, the king of Israel has been cast off: for Israel is a child, and I loved him, and out of Egypt have I called his children.”

Here Israel is a child (νήπιος, na`ar), and this word is used in Exodus initially of Moses (2:6).

It is also noteworthy that the Epistle of Barnabas (1st c. AD) interprets the Promised Land imagery of “milk and honey” as applying to the feeding of infants. Just as honey and then milk is given to infants, so too the Promised Land (Jesus) is where we (as infants) are fed and will inherit. This feeding, of course, takes place after being “delivered” from the “waters” of the Red Sea. In some sense the people were born through the Red Sea and entered as infants into the Promised Land (after the wandering through the desert, of course). It is actually through Joshua (Jesus) that this infant image reaches its climax: Joshua circumcised the people, which was normally done only when the child was 8 days old. The circumcised males were in a sense reduced to infancy, celebrated the second Passover, crossed the Jordan River in the same way as they had crossed the Red Sea, and then entered the Land of Milk and Honey (infant’s food).

Note: Anybody with kids out there might be shocked that honey was considered to be the first thing that a newborn ate. Parents are warned to not feed their children honey until they are over a year old, because there is a risk of botulism. This was not the case in ancient times, or rather we can say that the ancient view was diametrically opposed to the modern one. Not only was honey given to infants, but it was given to them before milk. It was foundational.

Moses is introduced in the Bible as a child, special from birth, and destined to be saved and adopted, just as he works with God to save and adopt the Hebrews as the people of God. He is the son of God drawn out of the water in order to make Israel sons of God and draw them out of Egypt.