Archaeology, Biblical Artifacts, Biblical Sites

Abel Beth Maacah: The Face of a King?

Leave a comment

Abel Beth Maacah: The Face of a King?

Head sculpture from Abel Beth Maacah
This royal face was unearthed at Tel Abel Beth Maacah during the 2017 excavation season. Archaeologists are still searching for it’s identity.

An exciting new discovery has recently been announced regarding the discovery of a small (2 inch/5 cm) sculpted head at Abel Beth Maacah. The discovery is exciting for at least two reasons. First, no human likeness like this has ever been discovered in Israel that dates to this time period. Eran Arie, the Israel museum’s curator of Iron Age and Persian archaeology states that it is one of a kind. “In the Iron Age, if there’s any figurative art, and there largely isn’t, it’s of very low quality. And this is of exquisite quality.” Second, the likeness appears to be that of a king.  More on that below, but first, where is Abel Beth Maacah and what is its significance? (For a YouTube video that shows a fly-over of Abel Beth Maacah click here).

Location and Biblical Significance of Abel Beth Maacah

Location of Tel Abel Beth Maacah

Abel Beth Maacah is located on the northern border of present-day Israel (bordering Lebanon), at the northern end of the Huleh Valley. This ancient tell, lies 4.5 miles (6.5 km) west of Tel Dan and a little over 1 mile (2 km) south of the modern town of Metulla. It is one of the largest tells (a little over 24 acres or 10 hectares), that remained unexcavated in Israel until a few years ago. Although this important archaeological site was initially identified in the 19th century as the probable site of ancient Abel Beth Maacah, an extensive survey of the mound was only conducted in 2012 with excavations beginning in 2013 under the auspices of Robert A. Mullins of Azusa Pacific University, Los Angeles and Naama Yahalom-Mack and Nava Panitz-Cohen of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The site consists of a large lower mound on the south, a smaller upper mound on the north, and a moderately high “saddle” that connects them. Evidence of settlement begins in Early Bronze II and continues through the Iron Age (I & II), and includes the Persian, Hellenistic, Medieval, and Ottoman periods. Continuing into the modern era, an Arab village existed on part of the site until 1948.

The Bible refers to Abel Beth Maacah in three places. The first occurrence is found in 2 Samuel 20:14-22. Following Absalom’s revolt against David, a man by the name of Sheba son of Bichri attempts to draw Israel away from David. His rebellion is not nearly as successful as Absalom’s (which ultimately ends in failure also) as he retreats to Abel Beth Maacah. Joab, David’s commander, in hot pursuit besieges the city. A wise woman intervenes and saves the city by having Sheba’s head cut off and thrown over the wall. One of the interesting asides of this story is the wise woman’s characterization of Abel Beth Maacah as “a city and a mother in Israel” (v. 19). Furthermore, she claims that Abel was known as a place for seeking wisdom and ending disputes (v. 18). The wise woman’s words testify to the ancient significance of Abel Beth Maacah, which the size of the tell also suggests. The next mention of Abel is found in 1 Kings 15:20. It is this reference that may be the most significant regarding the discovery of the sculptured head. The story in 1 Kings 15 tells of Asa king of Judah asking for the help of Ben Hadad I of Syria (Hebrew–Aram) against his rival from Israel, Baasha. War had broken out between Asa and Baasha and it appears that Baasha had the upper hand. As Baasha fortified the city of Ramah (the prophet Samuel’s hometown)–a city only a few miles from Jerusalem–Asa sent treasures from the Temple to enlist the aid of Ben-Hadad. According to 1 Kings 15:20, Ben Hadad came against Israel and among the cities he attacked was Abel Beth Maacah. The head sculpture fits roughly within this period of time. We shall return momentarily to discuss the significance of this. Finally, Abel is also mentioned in 2 Kings 15:29 among a list of cities conquered by the Assyrian king Tiglath-pilesar III. As a border city (bordering the kingdoms of Israel, Aram, and Phoenicia), Abel was always vulnerable to attack by foreign enemies.

Is This a Royal Face and Can We Identify Him?

Excavations at Abel Beth Maacah
Part of the excavations at Abel Beth Maacah wear the royal face of a statue was uncovered.

The sculptured head discovered in last summer’s excavation is made of faience, a glass-like material that was popular in jewelry and small human and animal figurines in ancient Egypt and the Near East. According to Yahalom-Mack, “The color of the face is greenish because of this copper tint that we have in the silicate paste.” There are several reasons why the archaeologists at Abel Beth Maacah believe this is the face of a Semitic king. First,  the hair-do is very decisive for suggesting this is an ancient Near-Eastern king (see my article on the significance of Absalom’s hair and Niditch’s quote regarding hair here). Second, this is the way ancient Egyptian art depicts its Near-Eastern neighbors. Yahalom-Mack states, “The guy kind of represents the generic way Semitic people are described.” Third, the striped golden diadem that surrounds the head seems to clinch the idea of royalty. But who is this bearded wonder? Can archaeologists identify him?

The royal head has been dated to the 9th century B.C. There are two reasons for the dating. First, carbon dating has placed it in the 9th century B.C., but cannot pinpoint it more exactly. Second, after digging through the floor of a massive Iron Age structure, the head was found in the layer underneath dated to the 9th century B.C. Because, the head cannot be dated more precisely than sometime in the 9th century, and because Abel Beth Maacah was a border city and changed hands several times in the 9th century, it is not possible at present to identify what royal figure the head may represent. There are a number of candidates. If it is an Israelite king, the archaeologists suggest either Ahab or Jehu as possibilities. Because Abel was conquered by the Arameans during this time Ben Hadad I and his son Hazael are also candidates. Finally, because Abel was also on the border of Phoenicia and because Ahab was married to the infamous Jezebel (who was from the city of Tyre in Phonecia), her father, Ithobaal I is also considered a possibility. What is interesting about each of these candidates is that they are all mentioned in the Bible (1-2 Kings). Those excavating at Abel Beth Maacah remain hopeful that this summer season (2018) may reveal further evidence regarding this enigmatic (but exciting) find. Perhaps another part of the statue, or some other evidence will one day unravel the mystery. If further news comes to light, be sure that I will be informing the readers of this blog!

For other articles related to this discovery click here, here, here, and here.

For information on the story of Abel Beth Maacah in 2 Samuel, or the characters of Absalom and Joab check out my book: “Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel.” Available at Amazon USA / UK, Barnes & Noble, or WestBow Press.

Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel

Book Reviews

Geographic Commentary on the Gospels

Leave a comment

Geographic Commentary on the Gospels

The Lexham Geographic Commentary on the Gospels
The Lexham Geographic Commentary on the Gospels is available in hardback or digital format at logos.com  and Lexham Press

I have frequently heard it said that a tour of the land of Israel is worth two years of Bible College.  My experience of visiting the land of Israel on a number of occasions has confirmed to me the validity of this statement. Geography may not be everyone’s forte, but becoming familiar with the “lay of the land” is an eye-opening experience when it comes to studying the Bible. Learning about the hills and valleys, the ancient cities and climate of the various parts of Israel, adds a third dimension to Bible study that provides greater insight into the various events described in its pages. Lexham Press has done everyone a great service toward this end by producing a new Geographic Commentary series. The first offering in this series concentrates on the Gospels and the second, soon to be available, is dedicated to Acts through Revelation.

This commentary, edited by Barry Beitzel, OT scholar, geographer and cartographer, is a collection of articles by various scholars with years of experience in studying the geography of Israel. Many have participated in archaeological digs throughout Israel, led study tours, lived in Israel, and/or taught at the prestigious Jerusalem University College (formerly known as the American Institute of Holy Land Studies).

Arrangement and Content

Lexham’s Geographical Commentary on the Gospels consists of 48 chapters arranged in a topical and, roughly, chronological order of Jesus’ life.  For example, the first three chapters discuss the birth narratives which are followed by a chapter on Nazareth and several chapters on the Wilderness (including discussions on John the Baptist, Jesus’ baptism and wilderness temptation). As one might expect in a chronological treatment, the commentary ends with articles about Jesus’ Passion. These chapters center on Gethsemane, Jesus’ trial, crucifixion, burial and post-resurrection appearances. Some chapter titles suggest how theological truths are communicated by understanding the geography of Israel. For instance, Chapter 25 is entitled, “The Geography of Forgiveness.” Similarly, the headline of Chapter 30 reads, “The Geographical Significance of the Transfiguration.” Furthermore, in her article entitled, “Jesus’ Journey into Gentile Territories” (chap. 24), Emily J. Thomassen asserts, “In biblical narrative, authors often mention place names in order to communicate a message of theological importance.” Again she notes, “In the ancient world, authors strategically used, reused, and nuanced geographic references in order to impact the reader” (p. 248).

A nice feature at the beginning of each chapter is a listing of pertinent Scriptures and an overview of the key points that are discussed. An example is given below.

Screenshot of Chapter 12
This screenshot is from the beginning of Chapter 12 in the Lexham Geographical Commentary on the Gospels.

As the above screenshot illustrates, not all chapters deal only with Geographical details. This chapter points out a number of interesting facts. Among them are, how long it would take a woman to grind grain for a family (upwards of 3 hours!). The author, who happens to be a woman (Elaine A. Phillips), notes that this gives a new meaning to “give us our daily bread!” (p. 112). Phillips also points out that the word used for the “guest room” at the Passover (katalyma) is the same word used in the birth narrative of Jesus often translated as “inn” (113). She, along with several other authors in this volume (Wright, p. 4 and Foreman, p. 14), note that the word more properly means “guest room,” not “inn.” Phillips concludes the chapter with an insightful section entitled “Symbolism and Lessons.” You’ll have to get the book to find out more!

Strengths and Weaknesses

The strengths of Lexham’s Geographic Commentary on the Gospels are many. As noted above, each chapter is written by an expert in the field. The authors are not only familiar with the geography of the Holy Land, they are also up-to-date on the latest archaeological discoveries and theories. For example, Benjamin A. Foreman’s chapter entitled, “Locating Jesus’ Crucifixion and Burial,” may burst a few bubbles for those who have toured Israel and been shown the Garden Tomb and the Stone Pavement near the Fortress of Antonia, but his facts are correct. Foreman notes that most scholars are now convinced that Jesus’ Trial took place at Herod’s Palace (the remains of which are near the Jaffa Gate), rather than the Fortress of Antonia, and that the Stone Pavement often shown to visitors as the place where Jesus was tried has actually been dated to the second century A.D. during the time of the Roman Emperor Hadrian. Furthermore, he notes that tradition (about 1900 years of it) and archaeology stand behind the Church of the Holy Sepulchre as being the correct site for Jesus’ crucifixion and burial. Not only is the tradition on the Garden Tomb very late (1842), archaeology reveals that the Tomb actually dates to the eighth to seventh centuries B.C., far too early to be a “newly carved” tomb as the Gospels relate. Sorry folks, if you want to retain some “warm fuzzies” about the Holy Land this book will destroy some of your illusions. However, if you’re looking for evidence and hard facts then you will find this commentary enlightening and helpful.

The Pool of Bethesda
A view of the Pool of Bethesda courtesy of biblewalks.com

Before speaking of weaknesses, I must note some other interesting insights. Aubrey Taylor (chap. 5 “Ministry in the Wilderness”) has written an excellent chapter on the significance of the wilderness location for John’s ministry (both negative and positive connotations) and some interesting insights into baptism. Perhaps the most provocative chapter is Chapter 14 “Jesus at the Pool of Bethesda,” by Gordon Franz. Franz suggests that a pagan shrine stood on this spot in the first century and that the angel referred to is actually a “fallen angel” (demon). According to Franz, Jesus is proving himself to be the true healer! He also contends that the feast mentioned in John 5:1 is the feast of Purim which he believes is significant for the interpretation of the passage. Space only permits the mention of one more chapter. Emily J. Thomassen’s article entitled, “Shared Memories of Resurrection on the Hill of Moreh” (Chapter 16), provides wonderful insight into the way in which the Gospel of Luke casts Jesus in the images of the prophets Elijah and Elisha.

Possible locations of Bethany Beyond the Jordan
2 possible locations of Bethany Beyond the Jordan. Map provided by Lexham Geographic Commentary on the Gospels.

In spite of it’s many strengths, there are a few weaknesses to Lexham’s Geographical Commentary on the Gospels. While I won’t complain about overlapping treatment (e.g., there are 3 treatments of Jesus’ birth), the differing conclusions reached by experts can be confusing for the layperson. For example, Wright and Foreman have different explanations as to why Mary couldn’t give birth in the “guest room.” They also note that there are two potential origins for the Magi–Babylon and Arabia. Wright favors an Arabian location (pp. 7-8), while Foreman favors the Babylonian provenance (pp. 24-25). Perhaps the editor is simply trying to present both sides of the argument, but again, it can be confusing when the experts disagree. The same can be said for the location of Bethany beyond the Jordan where John baptized (see map above left). Taylor concludes a location near the Dead Sea is correct (44), while Foreman concludes the northern location in Batanea is the correct one (73). How is the reader to decide between the two? Other weaknesses include a few typos. Two of the more glaring ones are Wright’s locating Constantine 80 years after Justin Martyr (5), rather than 180-200 years later as Foreman correctly does in the next chapter (15), and a parenthetical comment on page 16 which reads, “First Century Israelite House diagram pg. 395” when the diagram is actually found on page 6 (and also p. 114). Finally, once in a while the reader would like more information. For example, Elaine A. Phillips suggests that the town of Bethany (think, Mary, Martha, and Lazarus) “…may have been somewhat of a colony for those who suffered from leprosy” (113). The only support she provides is that Jesus ate at the home of Simon the Leper in Bethany and that Bethany was out of view of the temple but still close to Jerusalem. This is slim evidence and the reader wonders if there is more that Phillips isn’t able to share (perhaps due to space considerations?).

The Hardback vs. the Digital Version

Simply put, the digital version of the Geographic Commentary available on Logos Bible Software is superior to the hardback copy. I have both and have frequently compared them. For one thing, a number of the typos mentioned above (and some not mentioned) disappear in the digital version. The flexibility of the digital version presents many other advantages also. First, there are many more maps,  pictures and diagrams. Some of these are repetitions found in previous chapters. The advantage of the repetitions is that you don’t have to go to some other part of the book to find them. The digital version also provides a given photo or map at the exact spot where the discussion is happening. While the hardback version isn’t bad, there are times when a map or photo appears at an inconvenient spot. For example, Aubrey Taylor’s discussion of the two possible locations of Bethany Beyond the Jordan occurs on page 44, but the map doesn’t show up until page 46.

One of the really nice features of the digital version of the Geographic Commentary is the frequency of videos. If the author is talking about the Sea of Galilee, the digital version provides you with a video. Sometimes the videos are from the FaithLife Study Bible in which case they are short 30-40 second videos with no commentary. On other occasions, the videos connect to FaithLife TV on the FaithLife website. These videos frequently run 7-8 minutes with commentary provided. This is a real plus when compared to the hardback version! One warning, however. If you don’t have a subscription to FaithLife TV there are some videos you won’t be able to watch. The digital version also provides links to the Factbook, word studies, and, of course you can always hover over a Scripture reference to read it quickly rather than having to constantly turn pages in your Bible. As with all digital books in the Logos library, it also receives updates providing corrections for errors, or, in some cases, adding new information. Still, I realize that some prefer holding a book in their hand and to them I can heartily recommend the hardback version as well. If pressed to give a rating to the Lexham Geographical Commentary on the Gospels, I would give the hardback version 4 stars and the digital version 5 stars. Either way, it is a great addition to anyone’s library who is interested in a deeper study of the Bible.

The Lexham Geographical Commentary on the Gospels is available at Lexham Press, FaithLife/Logos and Amazon USA / UK 

Many thanks to Lexham Press for this free review copy. The opinions I have expressed are my own, and I was not required to write a positive review. 

Character Studies, Insights from Family Portraits, The Book of Samuel

Why Abiathar Chose Adonijah and not Solomon

2 Comments

Why Abiathar Chose Adonijah and not Solomon

In a previous post on “gaps” (see Mind the Gap: Guidelines for Gaps in Biblical Narratives), I wrote about the importance of recognizing gaps in biblical literature. Some gaps exist because the inspired author had no interest in filling in the information. At other times, however, gaps are an artistic way in which the author draws us more deeply into the story by providing tantalizing clues which we are expected to investigate and draw conclusions about. I believe that such is the case regarding the High Priest Abiathar’s defection to David’s son Adonijah just before Solomon is crowned king (1 Kings 1-2). Although Abiathar had always been loyal to David, when David was on his deathbed he chose to side with Joab and Adonijah against Solomon, the prophet Nathan, and Benaiah (one of David’s captains). The obvious question is “Why?” I believe some of the gaps in the story can be filled in to successfully answer this question. In my book Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel, I seek to do that. Below is an excerpt from my book which seeks to provide an answer to the mysterious actions of Abiathar. If you’d like to follow along in your Bible, some of the key verses for the following story are: 1 Kings 1:7, 19, 25, 42; 2:26–27, 35.

Excerpt From “Family Portraits”

In the chess game for Solomon’s throne, Abiathar lined up on the wrong side.

In his old age Abiathar makes the fateful error of aligning himself with the wrong man for the throne. It appears from 1 Kings 1–2 that Solomon was the choice of (both) David and God for the throne (1:17, 29–30; 2:15, 45). A look at other characters [in 1&2 Samuel] teaches us that, not only does God honor those who honor him (1 Sam. 2:30), but those who go against his anointed experience the consequences. Abiathar is an example of this. His association with God’s anointed, David, brought him blessing, but his association with Adonijah and his rejection of Solomon, the Lord’s chosen, brought judgment down on his head (1 Kings 2:26–27).

To understand why Abiathar joins Adonijah’s attempt to gain the throne from Solomon involves a little reading between the lines (due to gaps!). The text does not explicitly state Abiathar’s motive, and yet, by examining the passages that speak about him, it is possible to suggest a motive. Other passages which speak of Abiathar show him to be a loyal follower of David, who carries the ark of God (2 Sam. 15:24–36; 19:11). However, these passages also reveal that Abiathar was not the only high priest in David’s service. Zadok is also mentioned as high priest along with Abiathar, and seems to have eclipsed him in importance. Not only does Zadok’s name always appear before Abiathar’s in these texts, but when David flees from Jerusalem, it is striking that David directly addresses Zadok but never speaks to Abiathar (2 Sam. 15:24–29). It seems that Abiathar went from being David’s only high priest (during his fugitive days–see 1 Sam. 23), to playing second fiddle to Zadok during the kingdom years. It is natural to suppose that, under such circumstances, Abiathar could easily succumb to envy.

Scripture provides meager information regarding this dual high priesthood. Zadok’s first appearance in the narrative follows the conquest of Jerusalem, where he is mentioned among David’s officials (2 Sam. 8:17). Textual evidence suggests that he joined David when the kingdom was unified following Ish-bosheth’s death (1 Chron. 12:23, 28). Zadok may have been appointed high priest to appease the northern tribes and strengthen the fragile unity between north and south. Thus, this unusual situation may have resulted in the anomaly of having two high priests during David’s reign. Whether David preferred Zadok for political, religious, or other reasons, we are not told. Since Zadok was a “newcomer” to David’s regime, having formerly shown loyalty to “the kingdom of Saul” (1 Chron. 12:23), it is possible that Abiathar resented his growing importance. Abiathar’s loyal ties to Judah and Zadok’s ties to the northern tribes provide a further plausible explanation for their different allegiances at the time of Solomon’s accession.

It seems likely that Abiathar was aware of David’s oath to make Solomon king in his place (1 Kings 1:17). Yet it is clear that Solomon’s inner circle of power consisted of Nathan, Benaiah and Zadok. For Abiathar this would have meant that he, and his son Jonathan, would continue to be subordinate to Zadok. Perhaps he even feared that Zadok would become sole high priest. As a result, it is easy to see how siding with Adonijah and the “old Judahite regime”—which would recognize him as sole high priest—would be extremely tempting. And it seems he succumbed to this temptation. With Joab and David’s eldest living son, Adonijah, it must have seemed like a foolproof plan.

From this small exercise of reading between the lines, we learn an important lesson about accepting the role that God has assigned us. Grasping for power and importance is a pitfall for many. It is particularly sad to see power and status pursued within the church, and yet, as fallible human beings, like Abiathar, we sometimes succumb to this temptation. Abiathar’s example teaches us the importance of contentment. It is far better to have less power and importance and be in the will and blessing of God, than to strive for what God has not ordained for us. Abiathar’s striving took him out of God’s will and brought God’s judgment down on him. Ironically, in his desire to be the only high priest, he lost his position totally. He and his family were relegated to obscurity as he was forced to retire to his hometown of Anathoth. Like the others involved in the attempted coup, Abiathar was deserving of death. It was only the restraint of Solomon and the mercy of God that kept him from that fate (1 Kings 2:26). God is merciful, and will even show mercy when we step outside his will, but in our selfishness we can lose his best for our lives and must experience the consequences of our choices, like Abiathar.

Order Your Copy of “Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel” today at Amazon USA / UK,  WestBow Press or Barnes and Noble

For other excerpts from Family Portraits, check out the articles below.

Archaeology, Biblical Artifacts

Archaeological Evidence for the Prophet Isaiah?

Leave a comment

Archaeological Evidence for the Prophet Isaiah?

This bulla (seal impression) reads “[belonging] to Isaiah nvy.” Is it the signature of the Prophet Isaiah? Photo: Ouria Tadmor/© Eilat Mazar.
In the latest issue of BAR (Biblical Archaeology Review), archaeologist Eilat Mazar announces what may be a find of great significance. A bulla (clay seal) has been discovered that may be the seal impression of the prophet Isaiah. In an excavation conducted in the Ophel (the area southeast of the Temple Mount staircase, see photo below), Mazar discovered 34 bullae, among other objects. Included in these finds was the bulla of King Hezekiah which I have written about previously (click here). As most readers of the Bible are aware, the Prophet Isaiah was a close personal advisor to King Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18-20; 2 Chron. 32; Isaiah 36-39) and played a pivotal role in Jerusalem’s deliverance from the Assyrian king, Sennacherib.

As one can tell from the photo on the right, the bulla has been partially damaged. The upper end is mostly missing and the left side of the bulla is also damaged. Enough of it can be seen, however, to note that it consists of three tiers. The top tier reveals the remnants of a grazing doe. According to Mazar a grazing doe is “a motif of blessing and protection found in Judah.” This motif is known on another bulla from the same area. The second tier reads “leyesha‘yah[u],” which translated means, “belonging to Isaiah.” The letter represented as a “u” in the brackets is missing due to the damage on the left side. It represents the Hebrew letter vav (ו) and is a certain reconstruction. Therefore, there is no doubt that the name on this seal impression reads “Isaiah.” The bottom line is where the main problem of interpretation comes in. It reads“nvy” (Hebrew: נבי–pronounced nahvee). It is possible that the damaged portion of the seal (recall that Hebrew is read from right to left) also once contained the Hebrew letter aleph (Hebrew: א). If this is the case, then the Hebrew word would mean “prophet.” In which case, the bulla would read, “belonging to Isaiah the prophet.”

Isaiah the Prophet or Isaiah the son of Nvy?

Isaiah bulla drawing on the left with the real image on the right. In the top tier you can see the legs of a grazing doe. The middle tier has the name “Isaiah,” while the bottom tier reads “nvy”. The letters in blue are the conjectural missing letters.

The other possible interpretation is that the letters “nvy” are a personal name and would refer to Isaiah’s father. In that case the inscription would read “belonging to Isaiah the son of Nvy.” This would mean the Isaiah mentioned on the bulla wold be a different Isaiah, since we know that the father of the biblical prophet was named “Amoz” (Isa 1:1). The inscription does not have the words “son of,” but Mazar points out that other seals, due to space considerations, do not always include the word for “son.” One argument in favor of this word not being a proper name is that Mazar states there is plenty of room on the bulla to have written the Hebrew word for “son.” Therefore it can’t be argued that it was left off due to space considerations. However, for this word to mean “prophet,” not only should it have the Hebrew letter aleph at the end, but one would expect the Hebrew word for “the” (Hebrew: ה, just one letter pronounced like our “h”) before “prophet.” There is plenty of room on the bottom line to have included this Hebrew letter. Mazar points out, however, that the Hebrew letter meaning “the” could have appeared on the middle line which is damaged on the left side. Although one would normally expect the word “the” to be connected to the word prophet in Hebrew, Mazar points out that other bullae often divide words in strange ways. For example, the bulla of Hezekiah’s father, king Ahaz, divides Ahaz’s name by putting the “z” on the next line. It is also true, however, that the Hebrew letter for “the” is not always found on inscriptions.

The Prophet Isaiah and King Hezekiah Laying Side by Side

The area circled in the picture is the Ophel.
Artist’s conception of the area of the Ophel with the City of David below.

Another interesting feature of the Isaiah bulla is that it was found less than 10 feet from the bulla of Hezekiah! It is interesting that two men who are associated so closely in the Bible, would have bullae laying this close to each other. Their close association in life, makes this placement of the bullae logical. If this bulla is from the prophet Isaiah, then it is understandable that something with his signature would be in the same area as that of King Hezekiah. We would expect that those of Hezekiah’s court would have documents or items kept in a royal storage area. So while this doesn’t prove that the bulla definitely belongs to the prophet Isaiah, it is a piece of circumstantial evidence worth considering. Mazar writes, “Finding a seal impression of the prophet Isaiah next to that of King Hezekiah should not be unexpected. It would not be the first time that seal impressions of two Biblical personas, mentioned in the same verse in the Bible, were found in an archaeological context.” I’ll conclude with another quote from Mazar regarding the mystery of this bulla. She writes, “Could it therefore be possible that here, in an archaeological assemblage found within a royal context dated to the time of King Hezekiah, right next to the king’s seal impression, another seal impression was found that reads “Yesha‘yahu Navy’ ” and belonged to the prophet Isaiah? Is it alternatively possible for this seal NOT to belong to the prophet Isaiah, but instead to one of the king’s officials named Isaiah with the surname Nvy?” Perhaps further study of this artifact, or future discoveries will reveal the answer to Mazar’s questions. For now, it is a tantalizing discovery that might have come from the prophet Isaiah himself.

(The quotes and information for this article, along with the pictures of the Isaiah bulla are taken from Eilat Mazar’s article entitled, “Is This the Prophet Isaiah’s Signature?,” in the March/April, May/June 2018 issue of BAR [vol. 44:2]). If you have a subscription to BAR you can read Mazar’s article here. You can also sign up for “Bible History Daily” on the BAR website and read a companion article by Megan Sauter entitled, “Isaiah’s Signature Uncovered in Jerusalem.”

Book Reviews, Commentaries

Mark Through Old Testament Eyes

Leave a comment

Mark Through Old Testament Eyes

Mark Through Old Testament Eyes, is the first in a new series of NT commentaries from Kregel Publications focusing on the significance of the OT for understanding the NT.

Because of the plethora of commentaries available today, each series seeks for legitimate reasons to be written. One can at times see the tortuous twists and turns an editor makes in the series Preface to substantiate their reason for yet another commentary series. No such twists and turns are necessary, however, for this new commentary series. Mark Through Old Testament Eyes is the first commentary in a series whose main focus is how each New Testament (NT) book reflects the Old Testament (OT) and how an understanding of that will deepen the reader’s appreciation for that particular NT book. While other commentaries will sometimes pause to point out an obvious OT quotation or allusion, due to other objectives, they cannot focus on the overall influence that the OT may have had on a given NT book. The “Through Old Testament Eyes” series seeks to fill this much-needed void.

Mark Through Old Testament Eyes not only seeks to illuminate Mark’s use of the OT, it is also a practical and applicational commentary. The commentary is interspersed with sections entitled: “Going Deeper,” in which author Andy Le Peau takes a more practical look at various topics and subjects found in the Gospel. Le Peau also includes helpful sections entitled: “What the Structure Means.” These sections highlight the literary features of Mark’s Gospel, helping readers to see the Big Picture. A third section is entitled: “Through Old Testament Eyes” and, as you guessed, focuses on how the Gospel of Mark engages the OT in it’s telling of the Jesus story. Each of these sections are set off from the regular commentary by gray boxes with the titles in bold print. A final feature of the commentary is a number of useful charts comparing and contrasting the story in Mark with itself or some aspect of the OT. A side purpose of Mark Through Old Testament Eyes is to introduce the reader to pertinent cultural background material. The commentary is well-suited for teachers and preachers but is written in a lay style that will benefit a Bible study leader or an average Christian who wants to go deeper into the message of Mark’s Gospel.

Jesus, the New Exodus, and Other Insights

Le Peau notes how Mark’s quotation of Isaiah and Malachi in Mark 1:2-3 echo the Exodus tradition and set the stage for the theme of the New Exodus led by Jesus, a theme enunciated throughout the gospel. Le Peau divides Mark’s Gospel into three sections centered around the theme of the Exodus and compares it with the OT theme of the Exodus in a helpful chart (18). The three divisions of Mark are: 1) The Liberator Arrives (Mk 1:1-8:27); 2) The Way to Jerusalem (Mk 8:22-10:52); and 3) Conquest in Jerusalem (Mk 11:1-16:8). Continuing the Exodus theme, Le Peau demonstrates that Jesus is presented as a new Moses by comparing Mark chapters 1-4 with similar scenes in Exodus-Deuteronomy, once again using a helpful chart (102).

Here is a sample of other helpful tidbits throughout the commentary:

  1. Herodias’s request at a banquet (Mk 6:23) contrasts with Esther’s request (119).
  2. The perplexing statement that Jesus was “about to pass by them,” when walking on the water (Mk 6:48) is clarified by OT expressions which show “passing by” to be an activity of God (see e.g.,Exod. 33:19, 22; 34:6-7; 1 Kgs. 19:11; Job 9:8, 11),  (124-125).
  3. Mark’s language throughout the gospel demonstrates that Jesus is God. Le Peau pauses to list all of the verses that demonstrate this (179-182).
  4. The 5 questions regarding Jesus’s authority over the law at the beginning of the gospel (Mk 2:1-3:6) are balanced by the 5 questions regarding Jesus’s authority over the Temple toward the end of the gospel (Mk 11:27-12:37), (211-212).
  5. Le Peau’s division of Mark 13 which confuses many because of it’s conflation of the Temple’s destruction with end-time events, is very helpful. He finds a parallel step-structure: (vv. 1-4 act as intro); A Destruction of Temple (5-23); B Coming of Son of Man (24-27); A’ Parable about the Temple (28-31); B’ Parable about the 2nd coming (32-37) (235-237)
  6. Le Peau notes that Zech 9-14 plays a prominent role in the last chapters of Mark. The Lord comes to the Mount of Olives to save his people (Mk 11:1; Zech 14:4); a king rides triumphantly but humbly to Jerusalem on a donkey (Mk 11:1-10; Zech. 9:9); followed by a reference to a cup as the blood of the covenant (Mk 14:24; Zech. 9:11); and finally the striking of the shepherd to scatter the sheep (Mk 14:27; Zech. 13:7). (262)
  7. Jesus’s warning in chapter 13 to “watch” is followed in 14:41 with Jesus’s own ability to watch at the time of trial, but the inability of the disciples to watch even for one hour. This theme is picked up again in 15:40-41 which pictures a group of women disciples who do “watch.”

Evaluation

Andrew T. Le Peau was the longtime associate publisher for editorial at InterVarsity Press and taught the gospel of Mark for over a decade at InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. He is also the author of Paths of Leadership and Heart, Soul, Mind, Strength.

There are times in which the author’s OT usage seems a bit stretched. For example, Le Peau contends that the mention of the Spirit at Jesus’s baptism (Mk 1:10) and subsequent act of driving him into the wilderness (1:12) recalls the mention of the Spirit hovering over the waters in Genesis 1:2. What am I missing here? He also draws some interesting parallels between Mark 6 and Ps. 23, but a few seemed forced (Table 6.1, 127). While Le Peau has a very interesting discussion on the significance of the number 3 (“What the Structure Means: The Power of Three, 272-273), his insistence throughout the commentary that 3 represents completeness (90-91, 187) is only his opinion. Finally, I am not in favor of endnotes, especially when my copy of the book is in PDF format!

Despite these minor issues, Mark Through Old Testament Eyes is a gem that should be in every pastor’s/Bible Teacher’s library. Le Peau not only demonstrates that the Gospel of Mark is indebted to the OT on every page, but how a deeper understanding of the OT will enhance a believer’s understanding of Mark. Le Peau has done a remarkable job chasing down OT references and allusions. Whether it’s OT info on “figs,” “widows,” or OT imagery (sun and moon blotted out, darkness, the sea, etc.) Le Peau demonstrates his knowledge and proficiency with the OT text which translates into a gold mine for the reader.

(Many thanks to Kregel Publications who provided a copy of Mark Through Old Testament Eyes in exchange for a fair and unbiased review.)

Purchase your copy of Mark Through Old Testament Eyes at Kregel Publications or at Amazon USA / UK