Hidden Message of the Crucifixion

Before reading this article, please read Luke chapter 23. 

Do you consider yourself a Christian, Zionist or both? The crucifixion of Christ addresses this topic, and though not expressly mentioned in the Scripture - below are some deductions that support a hidden message of the crucifixion.

This involves Barabbas, Pilate, the two criminals and Sanhedrin.

To begin, we must realize that Barabbas was likely a zealot leader (v19). He was probably facing crucifixion around the same time as Jesus, and he was well-known amongst the Israelites and the Roman government. There were hundreds, perhaps thousands of zealots that were killed or captured by Romans up to that point, and the fact that the people and Pilate knew this zealot by name meant he was a leader. Zealots who killed Romans were charged with murder, but Barabbas was charged with murder + insurrection.

This is why Pilate was also against Christ's execution: Jesus was innocent and a condemned criminal was about to be let out free on the streets again.

Just to shed some light on crucifixion, it was an ultimate form of capital punishment: a slow, torturous death that humiliated and prolonged the agony of its victim. It was also a 'public' form of punishment with the purpose of sending a message to the people to never do what this criminal had done. The Romans crucified enemies of the state - in this case, zealots who were fighting against the occupiers. This is why I believe the two convicts crucified alongside Jesus were also zealots.

In the ESV, Mark and Matthew label them 'robbers' and Luke calls them 'criminals.' I have yet to find another instance in Israel (before, during and after Pilate's governorship) where thievery alone resulted in crucifixion, so there has to be more than this. 

If they were only robbers, then they likely were caught stealing from the Romans. Perhaps they were trying to steal weapons or supplies. Whatever the charge, it is completely unlikely that the Romans sentenced these two criminals for acts of thievery against the Jews; to die as an enemy of the state meant they had to have been complicit in crimes against the Romans, so they too were likely zealots. 

Thirdly, to show his anger and and revenge against the Sanhedrin for what they compelled him do, I believe that Pilate crucified these two zealots alongside Jesus as a message that he would punish anyone who were true enemies of Rome. 

The main reason why I am writing this, is that Christ's death served to show us that his primary mission was not to establish a religious, structured regime in Israel. He wasn't there to overthrow the Roman empire and end the brutal occupation of Israel.

He came to earth to bring salvation firstly to Jews, the descendants of Abraham. Then these converts (who previously followed the law of Moses) brought salvation to the Gentiles. Now God wants the work to continue so that everyone, including the Jews - both inside and outside the land of Israel may have salvation.

I believe many Christians are confused about this. Instead of focusing on bringing the Gospel message to those whom Christ first came for, they're focused on the zealots' mission: liberating Israel from oppressors and establishing an independent state with its own government. Look at the Old Testament. Did God ever need an outside nation to come to Israel's defense, because His power was inadequate to rescue them? Were there not battles that God fought for Israel when they didn't even have to lift a single sword?

Whenever Israel was on God's side, He protected them and the nation flourished. When they turned away from Him, He lifted His protection and they paid for it with loss of life, possessions and land. 

Is Zionism what Christians should vigilantly and militantly support?

If this is what Christ came for, then that's what he would have done. But he didn't, so neither should we be focused on Zionism; we should work on continuing the ministry of Jesus Christ and bring salvation to all.

~ Jonathan D. Hodges

The Mind-Body Interaction Problem is not a Sufficient Reason to Reject Dualism

by Jason Dulle

Those who reject dualism (the view that man is made up of two kinds of substances: physical and immaterial) often cite the “interaction problem” as an argument against the view.  Stated simplistically, the interaction problem is to explain how an immaterial entity such as a mind/soul could causally interact with material entities.  One envisions the Hollywood movies in which a ghost is desperately trying to pick up a beverage or kiss someone to no avail.  Try as he might, he cannot connect his immaterial self to the material world to affect it in any way (unless you are Patrick Swayze!).  Many monists think the interaction problem alone is sufficient to dismiss dualism as a possibility.

Such an approach to the question seems wrongheaded, however.  One should not look at the queerness of mind-body interaction and immediately conclude that the mind cannot exist independent of the brain.  One must first evaluate the evidence for the existence of such an entity.  If there are good, independent reasons to think the mind is not an immaterial entity—but can be reduced to the brain or arise from material processes—then the interaction problem could serve as further confirmation that there is no soul.  But if there are good reasons to think the mind is an immaterial entity separate from the brain, then the interaction problem—while difficult or even impossible to explain—is insufficient to overturn the evidence that the mind is immaterial.  While we may not know how the mind interacts with the material world, we know the two entities do exist, and do interact with each other.  One need not explain how something occurs to know that it occurs.  We may forever be ignorant of how the mind and body relate to each other, but we have direct awareness and experience of the fact that they do.

To say “Because I cannot conceive of a way in which the soul could causally interact with the physical realm, the soul cannot exist” is like saying “Because I cannot conceive of a means by which voices can be transported thousands of miles in a split there can be no such things as telecommunication.”  But we know telecommunication is possible because we use it all the time.  We know phones exist!  We do not need to know how telecommunication works to knowthat it works.  Likewise, all of us have an immediate intuition that we are not identical to our bodies.  Any inability I may have to understand or explain the interaction of my self with my body does not count against the fact that I have a self that is distinct from and interacts with my body.

While there may be good reasons to reject dualism, the interaction problem is not one of them.  Indeed, some theologians and philosophers have proposed solutions to the problem.  Whether those solutions are sound or not can be debated, but what should not be debatable is the means by which we determine if the mind exists.  And as a matter of method, our answer to the howquestion must be secondary to the evidence for the what question.  If there is good reason to believe the mind is immaterial, then we should do so even if we do not know how the mind interacts causally with the material world.

Splitting the heavens and the Holy of Holies

By Jason Dulle

Mk 1:10  And just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens splitting apart [schidzo] and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. (NET)

Mk 15:37-38  But Jesus cried out with a loud voice and breathed his last. 38 And the temple curtain was torn [schidzo] in two, from top to bottom. (NET)

Mark seems to be making a connection between the response of heaven at Jesus’ baptism and the response of heaven at Jesus’ death through his use of the Greek term schidzo (meaning split, divide, or tear) — a connection that is obscured by most translations because they translate the word differently in each of the two verses.  At the beginning of Jesus’ ministry the heavens were opened to Him and He was personally anointed by the Holy Spirit from the Father.  At the end of His ministry, however, it was not the heavens that were opened, but the Holy of Holies itself, signifying that the presence of God is no longer confined to a specific locale, or available solely to the high priest. Now all have access to the presence of God because of Jesus.

Biblical Archaeology 13: Pomegranate Inscription

by Jason Dulle

Sometime around 1979 an ivory pomegranate no bigger than a human thumb and dated to the 8^thcentury BC showed up on the antiquities market.  Around the top it contains an inscription which reads, “[Belonging] to the House of [Yahwe]h, consecrated to the priests.”  Some scholars think this pomegranate adorned the head of a priestly scepter from Solomon’s temple.

While the authenticity of the pomegranate itself is not in dispute, the inscription is.  Professor Yitzhak Roman of the Hebrew University examined the inscription with an electron microscope and is convinced it is authentic, not a modern forgery.[1]

The debate will linger on, but if the inscription is proven to be authentic, it is a truly significant find.

Significance:

1. This may be the only surviving artifact from Solomon’s temple.
2. This would be the third oldest mention of Solomon’s temple outside of the Bible.

---

[1]See “Leading Israeli Scientist Declares Pomegranate Inscription Authentic” at http://www.bib-arch.org/news/news-ivory-pomegranate.asp for details.

Biblical Archaeology 12: Deir ‘Alla Inscription (Balaam Inscription)

By Jason Dulle

Numbers 22-24 tells the story of the prophet Balaam, son of Beor.  The children of Israel had finally entered the Promised Land and were conquering the inhabitants of the land one after another.  The Moabites, fearing they would be next, hired Balaam to curse the children of Israel.  While he tried his best, God prevented him from doing so.  Instead, he blessed them.

There was no extra-biblical record of a prophet by this name, but in 1967 Dutch archaeologists excavating in Deir ‘Alla, Jordan, uncovered one.  They found 119 fragments of plaster with ink writing carbon-dated to ~800 BC (the time of Ahab).  The language is a mix between Aramaic and Canaanite.  The presence of archaic words indicates it is based on an older text.

When put together, the fragments tell the story of a prophet, Balaam son of Beor, had a vision in which the people would be chastised by a fiery judgment:

	The misfortunes of the Book of Balaam, son of Beor. A divine seer was he.
	The gods came to him at night.
	And he beheld a vision in accordance with El’s utterance.
	They said to Balaam, son of Beor:
	“So will it be done, with naught surviving.
	No one has seen [the likes of] what you have heard!”
	Balaam arose on the morrow;
	He summoned the heads of the assembly to him,
	And for two days he fasted, and wept bitterly.
	Then his intimates entered into his presence,
	and they said to Balaam, son of Beor,
	“Why do you fast, and why do you weep?”
	Then he said to them: “Be seated, and I will relate to you what the Shaddai gods have planned,
	And go, see the acts of the god!”
	“The gods have banded together;
	The Shaddai gods have established a council,
	And they have said to [the goddess] Shagar:
	‘Sew up, close up the heavens with dense cloud,
	That darkness exist there, not brilliance;
	Obscurity and not clarity;
	So that you instill dread in dense darkness.
	And – never utter a sound again!’
	It shall be that the swift and crane will shriek insult to the eagle,
	And a nest of vultures shall cry out in response.
	The stork, the young of the falcon and the owl,
	The chicks of the heron, sparrow and cluster of eagles;
	Pigeons and birds, [and fowl in the s]ky.
	And a rod [shall flay the cat]tle;
	Where there are ewes, a staff shall be brought.
	Hares – eat together!
	Free[ly feed], oh beasts [of the field]!
	And [freely] drink, asses and hyenas!”
	Heed the admonition, adversaries of Sha[gar-and-Ištar]!
	… skilled diviner.
	To skilled diviners shall one take you, and to an oracle;
	To a perfumer of myrrh and a priestess.
	Who covers his body with oil,
	And rubs himself with olive oil.
	To one bearing an offering in a horn;
	One augurer after another, and yet another.
	As one augurer broke away from his colleagues,
	The strikers departed …
	The Admonitions are Heeded; The Malevolent Gods are Punished, the Goddess Rescued, and the Land Saved
	They heard incantations from afar
	…
	Then disease was unleashed
	And all beheld acts of distress.
	Shagar-and-Ištar did not …
	The piglet [drove out] the leopard
	And the … drove out the young of the …
	… double offerings
	And he beheld …

Significance: While the story and the content of Balaam’s prophecy has no connection to the Biblical event, this find provides good evidence that such a prophet by the Biblical name was active in the region, and may have been active at the precise time described by the Bible.

Biblical Archaeology 11: Jehoash Tablet

by Jason Dulle

2 Kings 12:4-5  Jehoash said to the priests, “All the money of the holy things that is brought into the house of the Lord, the money for which each man is assessed—the money from the assessment of persons—and the money that a man’s heart prompts him to bring into the house of the Lord, 5 let the priests take, each from his donor, and let them repair the house wherever any need of repairs is discovered.”

A sandstone tablet containing 16 inscribed lines commemorating the renovation of Solomon’s temple by Jehoash (9^th century BC) surfaced in 2001.  The tablet measures 12” x 24” x 3”.  The Hebrew text in which it is written reads:

[I am Yeho'ash, son of A]hazyahu, k[ing over Ju]dah, and I executed the re[pai]rs. When men’s hearts became replete with generosity in the (densely populated) land and in the (sparsely populated) steppe, and in all the cities of Judah, to donate money for the sacred contributions abundantly, in order to purchase quarry stone and juniper wood and Edomite copper / copper from (the city of) ‘Adam, (and) in order to perform the work faithfully,— (Then) I renovated the breach(es) of the Temple and of the surrounding walls, and the storied structure, and the meshwork, and the winding stairs, and the recesses, and the doors. May (this inscribed stone) become this day a witness that the work has succeeded, (and) may God (thus) ordain His people with a blessing.[1]

The authenticity of the artifact is disputed.  A. Rosenfeld and S. Ilani from the Geological Survey of Israel et al have concluded that it is genuine.  Rosenfeld writes:

The crack fades inward toward the center of the tablet and is almost invisible on its back. The presence of the crack favors the authenticity of the inscription since a modern engraver would have known that incising across this line of weakness would have jeopardized the structural integrity of the tablet.
…
This type of sandstone occurs in Cambrian formations found in southern Israel and in southwest Jordan (Bender, 1968) and was therefore available to ancient stone workers in Judea.
…
Many of the incised letters exhibit defects in shape at their edges. These defects are due to the detachment of quartz and feldspar grains during the erosion and weathering of the sandstone.
…
The patina on the surface carrying the inscription is composed of elements derived from the tablet itself (e.g., quartz and feldspar grains) as well as from the environment (dolomite, limestone, carbon ash particles, and gold globules).
…
Carbon ash particles are trapped within the patina. Samples of the patina were radiocarbon dated at an age of 2340 to 2150 years ago….
…
Goren et al, (2004) claimed that the engraved marks of the letters are fresh. They said that signs of fresh cuttings and polishing are exposed within the letters. Fresh engraving can be easily revealed by illuminating the tablet with ultraviolet light (Newman, 1990). However, when the tablet was illuminated with ultraviolet light, there was no characteristic fluorescence indicative of fresh engraving scars. In addition, the biogenic black to reddish patina is covering and firmly attached to the letters with morphological continuity to the tablet surface….
…
The following scenario may place the tablet’s stages of development into a historical context. The inscription resembles the Biblical description of repairs of the Temple in Jerusalem by Yehoash, King of Judah, son of Ahaziyahu (Kings II, 12:1-6, 11-17) and the letters “haziyahu” and “Judah” appear in the inscription. Thus the tablet may be a royal inscription that was placed in Jerusalem at the time of King Yehoash, about 2800 years BP. If this scenario is correct, then both the nature of the patina and the fact that its apparent age is younger than the inscription by 500 years needs to be explained. We propose the following sequence of events.

The tablet may have been emplaced in Jerusalem about 2800 years BP and remained there for about 200 years, during which time the margins of its letters were weathered. When the Temple was destroyed by the Babylonians about 2600 years BP (586 B.C.E.), the tablet was broken and subsequently buried in the rubble. After burial, the patina began to accrete on the tablet including carbon fragments. We believe that the apparent age of 2,250 years BP as determined in the laboratory is an average of several pieces of soot (carbon), both younger and older than that age.”[2]

Significance:

1. If authentic, this confirm the existence of Jehoash.
2. Confirms the Bible’s description of Jehoash’s renovation of the temple.

---

[1]A. Rosenfeld, H. R. Feldman, et al, “Archaeometric evidence for the authenticity of the Jehoash  Inscription Tablet”; available from http://www.bibleinterp.com/abslast.shtml.
[2]A. Rosenfeld, S. Ilani, et al, “Archaeometric evidence for the authenticity of the Jehoash  Inscription Tablet; available from http://www.bibleinterp.com/abslast.shtml.

Biblical Archaeology 10: House of Yahweh Ostracon

By Jason Dulle

An ostracon dated to the early 6^th century BC was discovered inArad (an ancient city ofJudah).  It reads, “To my lord Eliashib: May YHWH inquire after your well-being. And now, give to Shemaryahu a measure (of flour), and to the Kerosite you will give a measure (of flour). And concerning the matter about which you commanded me, it is well. He is staying in the house of YHWH.”

The author of this ostracon is unknown—as is the precise circumstances surrounding the writing—but the recipient is Eliashib.  Nothing is known about this individual.  The ostracon makes it clear, however, that the author is responding to a prior correspondence from Eliashib.  The author speaks of a mutual acquaintance as staying in the house of YHWH, which is likely a reference to Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem.

Significance:

1. This is the 2^nd oldest mention of Solomon’s temple discovered (the “3 shekel” ostracon is the oldest).
2. This was written within a few years/decades before Solomon’s Temple was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BC.

The ostracon is currently housed in The Israel Museum.

Biblical Archaeology 9: Seal of Shema, Servant of Jeroboam

By Jason Dulle

2 Kings 14:16,23  And Jehoash slept with his fathers and was buried inSamariawith the kings ofIsrael, and Jeroboam his son reigned in his place. 23 In the fifteenth year of Amaziah the son of Joash, king ofJudah, Jeroboam the son of Joash, king ofIsrael, began to reign inSamaria, and he reigned forty-one years. (ESV)

During an expedition in Meggido in 1903-4, archeologists discovered an ancient seal that reads, “Shema, servant of Jeroboam.”  Given the location and dating of the find, this seal probably belonged to an official in the court of King Jeroboam II of Israel (782-745 BC).  If so, this seal was used by a minister in Jeroboam’s court to conduct official business!

Significance:

1. This confirms the existence of King Jeroboam II.

Biblical Archaeology 8: The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser

By Jason Dulle

1 Kings 19:15-16  The Lord said to him, “Go back the way you came and then head for theDesert of Damascus. Go and anoint Hazael king overSyria. 19:16 You must anoint Jehu son of Nimshi king overIsrael, and Elisha son of Shaphat from Abel Meholah to take your place as prophet. 

2 Kings 10:36  Jehu reigned over Israel for twenty-eight years inSamaria.

In 1846 archaeologists discovered a black basalt, four-sided obelisk measuring 6’5” in Kalhu, Iraq (modern Nimrud).  This was the site of the ancient Assyrian capital.  The obelisk was erected as a public monument in 825 BC, glorifying Shalmaneser III’s (858-824 BC) military exploits over a period of 31 years.  It contains a mixture of reliefs and inscriptions recording the conquests of Assyrian King Shalmaneser III.  There are a total of 20 reliefs: five per side.  Five different kings are pictured paying tribute to Shalmaneser: (1) Sua of Gilzanu; (2) ruler of Musri; (3) Marduk-apil-usur of Suhi; (4) Qalparunda of Patin.  The fifth king is none other than King Jehu of Israel, who payed tribute to Shalmaneser in ~841 BC, approximately 10 years before Jehu’s reign ended.  The inscription connected to the relief of Jehu reads, “The tribute of Jehu, son of Omri: I received from him silver, gold, a golden bowl, a golden vase with pointed bottom, golden tumblers, golden buckets, tin, a staff for a king [and] spears.” 

This event is not recorded in the Bible.  Indeed, the Bible does not record any of Jehu’s foreign affairs except for a brief comment that the Syrian king, Hazael, was taking away territory on the eastern border (2 Kings 10:32-33).

It might be asked why Jehu would pay tribute to an Assyrian king.  We can’t be certain, but he probably did so because he was defeated by Shalmaneser, or because he was seeking protection from Hazael, king of Damascus(2 Kings 10:32).  Shalmaneser would be amenable to helping Jehu (for a price, of course) since both he and Jehu shared a hatred for the former king of Israel, Ahab, who had joined in a coalition against Shalmaneser in 853 at the Battle of Qarqar (recorded in the Kurkh Monolith).

Significance:

1. Confirms the existence of King Jehu.
2. Confirms the existence of the Northern Kingdom of Israel.
3. It is the only depiction of anyone mentioned in the Bible made by a contemporary (and the earliest depiction of an Israelite king).

It is absolutely amazing to be able to see a picture of an Israelite king inscribed on a stone by one of the most powerful kings of one of the most powerful empires!  Perhaps the engraver was even there to witness Ahab’s arrival, and pictured him just as he remembered him.

Biblical Archaeology 6: House of David Inscription

By Jason Dulle

David is celebrated as the greatest, and most famous king of Israel.  It was quite interesting, therefore, that archaeologists had never turned up any reference to David outside of Biblical records.  The absence of evidence led many to conclude that David was not a historical figure.  That changed in July 1993 when archaeologists discovered three stone fragments while excavating the city gate at Dan.[1]  The stones contained an Aramaic inscription dating to the mid 9th century BC that mentions “the house of David.”  The 13 extant lines of text read:

1. [.....................]…….[...................................] and cut [.........................]
2. [.........] my father went up [against him when] he fought at[....]
3. And my father lay down, he went to his [fathers]. And the king of I[s-]
4. rael entered previously in my father’s land. [And] Hadad made me king.
5. And Hadad went in front of me, [and] I departed from [the] seven[.....]
6. of my kingdom, and I slew [seve]nty kin[gs], who harnessed thou[sands of cha-]
7. riots and thousands of horsemen (or: horses). [I killed Jeho]ram son of [Ahab]
8. king of Israel, and I killed [Ahaz]iahu son of [Jehoram kin]g
9. of the House of David. And I set [their towns into ruins and turned]
10. their land into [desolation........................]
11. other …[......................................................................... and Jehu ru-]
12. led over Is[rael......................................................................and I laid]
13. siege upon [............................................................]

King Hazael of Syria (842-805 BC) probably set up the stele at Dan after he conquered the city.  It was a “business card” of sorts, ranting on the kings of Israel and Judah whom he had defeated.  Presumably after Hazael died and the city of Dan was freed from the control o fSyria, the inhabitants of Dan broke the stele and used the rock to help construct their gate.

While this inscription confirms the Biblical existence of Ahaziah and Jehoram, it contradicts the Biblical record of their death.  While both Jehoram king of Israel and Ahaziah king of Judah were defeated in battle by Hazael (2 Kings 8:7-15, 28; 9:24-29; 2 Chronicles 22:5), it was Jehu who killed them (2 Kings 9:24,27), not Hazael.

Significance:

1. This is one of the earliest extra-biblical mentions of Israeli and Judahite kings.
2. Confirms that Jehoram was king of Judah (5^th), and that his son was Ahaziah.
3. Confirms that Ahab was king of Israel (7^th), and that his son was Jehoram (9^th; yes, there are two kings named Jehoram, and two kings named Ahaziah).
4. Confirms the historicity of King David.
5. This proves that the Davidic dynasty continued for at least 150 years following David’s death, just as God had promised David.

---

[1]The largest stone (12.5” x 8.5”) was discovered in 1993.  Two additional pieces of the stele were found in June 1994.

Biblical Archaeology 7: The Kurkh Monolith

by Jason Dulle

In 1861 archeologists discovered a 7.2’ stele recording the first six years of the reign of Assyrian King Shalmaneser III (859-824 BC).[1]  The stele is dated to dated 853 BC, and describes Shalmaneser’s campaigns in western Mesopotamia and Syria.  At the end of the stele, however, it gives an account of the Battle of Qarqar.

Twelve kings allied themselves together against Shalmaneser at the Syrian city of Qarqar, one of whom was King Ahab of Israel.  The relevant portion of the stele says, “I approached the city of Qarqar. I razed, destroyed and burned the city of Qarqar , his royal city. 1,200 chariots, 1,200 cavalry, and 20,000 troops of Hadad-ezer of Damascus; 700 chariots, 700 cavalry, 10,000 troops of Irhuleni, the Hamathite; 2,000 chariots, and 10,000 troops of Ahab, the Israelite; 500 troops of Byblos; 1,000 troops of Egypt; 10 chariots and 10,000 troops of the land of Irqanatu; 200 troops of Matinu-ba’al of the city of Arvad; 200 troops of the land of Usanatu; 30 chariots and X,000 troops of Adon-ba’al of the land of Shianu, 1,000 camels of Gindibu of Arabia; X hundred troops of Ba’asa, the man of Bit ruhubi, the Ammonite–these twelve kings he took as his allies.”

Significance:

1. While this event is not described in the Bible, the Kurkh Monolith confirms the existence and reign of King Ahab.

Biblical Archaeology 5: Three Shekel Ostracon

by Jason Dulle

A pottery shard measuring 4” x 3.5” with Hebrew writing on it showed up on the antiquities market.   It reads, “As Ashyahu the king[1]commanded you to give into the hand of [Ze]chariah silver of Tarshish for the House of Yahweh: three shekels.”

It appears to be a receipt for a donation of three shekels of silver to the “House of Yahweh,” a reference to a temple.  It is dated between 835 and 796 BC, and thus likely refers to Solomon’s temple.  If so, this receipt was written approximately 130-160 years after the Temple was built.  

Significance:

1. This is the oldest mention of Solomon’s temple ever discovered.

---

[1]The identity of this king is not clear, but it could be Jehoash or Josiah since it is similar in form and both kings had a temple official named Zechariah.

Why I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Athiest.

Biblical Archaeology 4: The Moabite Stone (a.k.a. Mesha Stele)

by Jason Dulle

2 Kings 3:4-6,24  Now Mesha king of Moab was a sheep breeder, and he had to deliver to the king of Israel 100,000 lambs and the wool of 100,000 rams. 5 But when Ahab died, the king of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel. 6 So King Jehoram marched out of Samaria at that time and mustered all Israel. [The account goes on to talk about an alliance with Jehoshaphat of Judah and the king of Edom.  When they run out of food and water, they consult Elisha who prophesies that the Lord will provide water for them, and defeat Moab.] 24 But when they came to the camp of Israel, the Israelites rose and struck the Moabites, till they fled before them. And they went forward, striking the Moabites as they went. … 26 When the king of Moab saw that the battle was going against him, he took with him 700 swordsmen to break through, opposite the king ofEdom, but they could not. 27 Then he took his oldest son who was to reign in his place and offered him for a burnt offering on the wall. And there came great wrath against Israel. And they withdrew from him and returned to their own land.
In 1868, at Dhiban in Jordan, archaeologists uncovered a black basalt stone measuring 3’8” x 2’3” with an inscription recording the acts of Mesha, King of Moab around 850 BC.  It contains 34 lines of text written in Moabite:

1. I am Mesha, son of KMSYT (Kemosh[-yat]), the king of Moab, the Di-
2. -bonite. My father was king of Moab thirty years, and I reign-
3. -ed after my father. And I built this high-place for Kemosh in QRH (“the citadel”), a high place of [sal-]
4. -vation because he saved me from all the kings (or “all the attackers”), and because let me be victorious over all my adversaries. Omr-
5. -i was king of Israel and he oppressed Moab for many days because Kemosh was angry with his
6. land. And his son replaced him; and he also said, “I will oppress Moab”.
7. But I was victorious over him and his house. And Israel suffered everlasting destruction, And Omri had conquered the lan-
8. -d of Madaba, and he dwelt there during his reign and half the reign of his son, forty years. But Kemosh
9. returned it in my days. So I [re]built Baal Meon, and I the water reservoir in it. And I bu[ilt]
10. Qiryaten. The man of Gad had dwelt in Ataroth from of old; and the king of Israel
11. built Ataroth for him. But I fought against the city and took it. And I slew all the people [and]
12. the city became the property of Kemosh and Moab. And I carried from there the altar for its DVDH (“its Davidic altar”?) and I
13. dragged it before Kemosh in Qerioit, and I settled in it men of Sharon m[en]
14. of Maharit. And Kemosh said to me, “Go! Seize Nebo against Israel.” So I
15. proceeded by night and fought with it from the crack of dawn to midday, and I to-
16. -ok it and I slew all of them: seven thousand men and boys, and women and gi-
17. and maidens because I had dedicated it to Ashtar Kemosh I took [the ves-]
18. -sels of YHWH, and I dragged them before Kemosh. And the king of Israel had built
19. Yahaz, and he dwelt in it while he was fighting with me, but Kemosh drove him out before me. So
20. I took from Moab two hundred men, all his captains. And I brought them to Yahaz, And I seized it
21. in order to add (it) to Dibon. I (myself) have built the ‘citadel’, ‘the wall(s) of the forest’ and the wall
22. of the ‘acropolis’. And I built its gates; And I built its towers. And
23. I built a royal palace; and I made the ramparts for the reservo[ir for] water in the mid-
24. -st of the city. But there was no cistern in the midst of the city, in the ‘citadel,’ so I said to all the people, “Make [for]
25. yourselves each man a cistern in his house”. And I hewed the shaft for the ‘citadel’ with prisoner-
26. -s ofIsrael. I built Aroer, and I made the highway in the Arnon.
27. I built Beth-Bamot, because it was in ruins. I built Bezer, because it was
28. a ruin [with] the armed men of Dibon because all of Dibon was under orders and I ru-
29. -led [ove]r [the] hundreds in the towns which I have annexed to the land. And I bui-
30. -lt Medeba and Beth-Diblaten and Beth-Baal-Meon, and I carried there [my herdsmen]
31. [to herd] the small cattle of the land, and Horonain, in it dwelt …
32. [and] Kemosh [s]aid to me, “Go down, fight against Horonain”. And I went down [and I fou-
33. -ght with the city and I took it and] Kemosh [re]turned it in my days. Then I went up from there te[n...]
34. [...a high] place of justice and I [...]

Significance:

1. The stele corroborates events in 2 Kings 3. Kings mentions that Moabwas subject to Israel, but it does not name the king who subjected them (so it could have been Omri as the stele says).
   Who did Moab rebel against?  According to the stele it was the son of Omri (Ahab), but according to 2 Kings they did not rebel until after the death of Ahab (2 Kings 1:1; 3:5).  Kings implies that they rebelled first against Ahab’s son Ahaziah (reigned 2 years), and continued to rebel against Jehoram (nothing in 2 Kings 3 requires that we see the rebellion as beginning under Jehoram, but it would be ok even if that was the meaning).
   Is this a contradiction?  No, not if we understand “son” to mean “descendent of.”  Perhaps Mesha mentioned the grandfather (Omri) rather than the actual father of the king(s) he rebelled against (Ahaziah, Jehoram) because Omri was the one who was responsible for the defeat of Moab.
   This might also help us make sense of Mesha’s mention of the king of Israel being present in Madaba for 40 years.  Omri only reigned for 12 years and died.  But Ahab reigned for 22 years, Ahaziah 2 years, and Jehoram reigned for 12 years.  Assuming Omri defeated Moab early in his reign, then Moab would have been subject to Israel for 36 years.

2. It contains the earliest extra-biblical reference to YHWH in any artifact.
3. It may also contain a reference to the “house of David.”  In 1994, André Lemaire argued that line 31 should be translated “as for Horonen, there lived in it the house of [D]avid.”[1]  To support this translation Lemaire had to supply one missing letter: the Hebrew letter “D” for David’s name.[2]  If Lemaire is correct, then this would be the earliest extra-biblical reference to King David.

---

[1] Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 1994, pp. 30-37.
[2] http://biblicalarcheology.net/?p=62.

Biblical Archaeology 3: Pharaoh Shishak’s Invasion

by Jason Dulle

2 Chron 12:2-4,9  “Because they were unfaithful to the Lord, in King Rehoboam’s fifth year, King Shishak of Egypt attacked Jerusalem. 3 He had 1,200 chariots, 60,000 horsemen, and an innumerable number of soldiers who accompanied him fromEgypt, including Libyans, Sukkites, and Cushites. 4 He captured the fortified cities of Judahand marched against Jerusalem. 9 King Shishak of Egypt attacked Jerusalem and took away the treasures of the Lord’s temple and of the royal palace; he took everything, including the gold shields that Solomon had made.” (NET)  See also 1 Kings 14:25-26.
When archaeologists discovered the Karnak Temple of the god Amun in Egypt, on its walls there was a record of Pharaoh Shishak’s (Shoshenq I, 943-922 BC) raid of 140 different places, including cities in Judah and Israel (925 BC).  The Judahite section of the wall is mostly ruined, so we can’t see many of the names.  The engraving is dated to 924-922 BC.
Significance:

1. Confirms the Biblical account of the invasion of Judah (the Bible does not mention Shiskak’s raids in Israel).
2. Confirms some of the place names mentioned in the Biblical accounts.

Biblical Archaeology 2: The Pool at Gibeon

by Jason Dulle 

2 Samuel 2:12-17  Abner the son of Ner, and the servants of Ish-bosheth the son of Saul, went out from Mahanaim to Gibeon. 13 And Joab the son of Zeruiah and the servants of David went out and met them at the pool of Gibeon. And they sat down, the one on the one side of the pool, and the other on the other side of the pool. 14 And Abner said to Joab, “Let the young men arise and compete before us.” And Joab said, “Let them arise.” 15 Then they arose and passed over by number, twelve for Benjamin and Ish-bosheth the son of Saul, and twelve of the servants of David. 16 And each caught his opponent by the head and thrust his sword in his opponent’s side, so they fell down together. Therefore that place was called Helkath-hazzurim, which is at Gibeon. 17 And the battle was very fierce that day. And Abner and the men of Israel were beaten before the servants of David. (ESV)
Jeremiah 41:11-12  But when Johanan the son of Kareah and all the leaders of the forces with him heard of all the evil that Ishmael the son of Nethaniah had done, they took all their men and went to fight against Ishmael the son of Nethaniah. They came upon him at the great pool that is in Gibeon. (ESV)

After Saul’s death, David went to Hebron and was set up as king by the children ofJudah.  Meanwhile, Abner set up Saul’s son, Ishbosheth, as king over all Israel.  David’s and Ishbosheth’s generals met at the Pool of Gibeon for the first face-off of many battles that ultimately ended with David assuming the kingship of both Judah and Israel.  According to the Bible, then, such a pool existed in the lifetime of David (~1000 BC).  Jeremiah spoke of the same pool some 400 years later.
In 1956 the Pool of Gibeon was discovered six miles north of Jerusalem.  A tunnel runs from the pool to Jerusalem. It is an astonishing 80 feet deep, and was dug sometime before 1000 BC.  The immense size of the pool can be seen from the photograph above (see the tiny people in the upper right corner?) and below.
Significance:

1. It confirms the Biblical detail about the pool’s existence in David’s day.

Biblical Archaeology 1: The Merneptah Stele

by Jason Dulle

In 1896 archaeologists discovered a stele in Pharaoh Merneptah’s mortuary temple in Thebes,Egypt.  The stele measures 10’4” x 5’4”, and is written in Egyptian Hieroglypics.  It dates to 1209-1208 BC, which places it during the time of the Judges.

The stele was originally erected by Pharaoh Amenhotep III, but later inscribed by Merneptah (1213-1203 BC), the son of Ramses II.

Mummy of Pharaoh Merneptah

And we have Merneptah’s mummy!

The stele describes Merneptah’s victories over the Libyans et al, but the last two lines mention a prior military campaign in Israel (this campaign is not mentioned in the Bible): “Canaan is captive with all woe. Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized, Yanoam made nonexistent; Israel is wasted, bare of seed.  Hurru is become a widow for Egypt! All lands together, they are pacified; everyone who was restless has been bound by the king of Upper and Lower Egypt; Be-en Re Meri-Amon; the Son of Re; Merneptah Hotep-hir-Maat, given life like Re every day.”

"Israel" in the Merneptah Stele

Significance:
1. This is the oldest extra-biblical mention of the name “Israel” (and the only mention in Egyptian records). The next oldest is the Mesha Stele, 300 years later.

2. This is the only reference to Israel prior to the Divided Kingdom.

3. This proves that a people group named “Israel” existed, and was dwelling in Palestine in the 13th century B.C.  A particular hieroglyphic used to indicate a country is missing.  This means thatIsrael is depicted as a people-group rather than as a nation with clearly defined boundaries.  This depiction ofIsrael at this time in history is consistent with the portrait painted in the book of Judges.

4. Given the fact that the purpose of the stele is to celebrate the great accomplishments of Pharaoh Merneptah—the most powerful man in the world at the time—the fact that he mentionsIsraelat all is significant.  It indicates that they were seen as a worthy opponent, sufficient to be mentioned in the annals of a great king’s military victories.

Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

by Jason Dulle

A popular maxim advanced by naturalists and atheists is that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” This maxim is often invoked in discussions about the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus. These are extraordinary claims, they say, and thus require extraordinary evidence. Not surprisingly, those who advance this maxim think Christian theists have failed to provide the required evidence.

J.W. Wartick wrote a nice article questioning the truth of this maxim. He notes that on first blush the maxim seems obviously true, but upon further reflection it can be shown to be obviously false. Consider the claim that I am a giant pink salamander. This is an extraordinary claim, and yet the claim could be evidenced in rather ordinary ways. For example, one could come to my home and observe me. If I appear to be a giant pink salamander (one who talks and types), then the extraordinary claim is justified.

If one is not convinced by their eyes, then perhaps they could take a DNA sample and compare it to other salamanders. Such evidence is ordinary, but sufficient to verify the rather extraordinary claim that I am a pink salamander. It is false, then, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. All that is required to justify an extraordinary claim is sufficient evidence.

Wartick notes some other problems with the maxim as well:

• It is ambiguous regarding what qualifies a claim as “extraordinary.” Does it mean improbable? If so, then many events are extraordinary (yesterday’s lottery numbers, a hole-in-one, etc.)The atheist should not be allowed to get away with labeling a claim as “extraordinary” (and thus raising the bar for its justification) unless he has a clearly defined criteria for what qualifies as an extraordinary claim and can demonstrate that the claim in question meets that criteria.
• It is ambiguous regarding what constitutes “extraordinary evidence.” Is it the number of evidences, or the persuasive power of the evidence? While it is clear that the epistemic bar has been raised, it is not clear as to how high it has been raised, or how it can be cleared. The ambiguity allows the atheist to dismiss any kind/amount of evidence the Christian theist presents as “not good enough.” Only if “extraordinary evidence” is quantified can it be determined if the epistemic bar is appropriate, or if it has been met.

Wartick speculates that what people mean by “extraordinary claims” is a claim regarding things that “can’t be observed in the usual fashion” or things that have “great existential import” to our lives. In regards to things that can’t be observed in the usual fashion, Wartick argues that we do not need extraordinary evidence to justify such claims, but a different kind of evidence (logical, philosophical) than we would employ for things we observe in a usual fashion.

In regards to things that have great existential import to us, Wartick takes a cue from William Lane Craig to argue that such claims should cause us to be more open to every piece of evidence in its favor than we normally would be for things that have little existential import. Citing Craig, he provides the following example: “[S]uppose you are diagnosed with a fatal disease and there was ‘some experimental evidence that a vaccine… might cure you, wouldn’t you be desperate to [try the medicine and] find out if that might save your life… rather than saying, ‘Well, this is such a life-changing situation that I’m going to be as skeptical as I can, and only take this medicine as a last resort when it’s been demonstrated absolutely that’ it will cure the disease.”

Let me finish with a possible tactical approach to responding to this maxim. When someone says, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” respond by saying, “That is quite an extraordinary claim you just made. Do you have extraordinary evidence that justifies it?” Surely your opponent will object to your classification of the maxim as an extraordinary claim, but to show why it is not an extraordinary claim he will have to clearly define the criteria for what constitutes an extraordinary claim.

At that point you can debate the criteria and/or whether or not those criteria truly apply to the issue at hand (God’s existence, resurrection of Jesus, etc.). You could also respond by asking, “Why think extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?” This will require him to justify the veracity of the maxim, and in the process give you a chance to expose its flaws. Perhaps you could even follow up by asking, “Why think extraordinary claims require anything more than sufficient evidence?”

I recommend that you read the article for yourself. It’s a short read.

Scientists Don’t Have a Clue How Life Began

by Jason Dulle

Those aren’t my words (although I concur with them). Those are the words of John Horgan, a science journalist and former editor of Scientific American. Horgan recently published an article in Scientific American discussing the dismal state of origin-of-life research. He describes the research as being at an “impasse,” and resorting to “far out…speculation” as exemplified by the theory of panspermia (life originated in outer space and was brought to earth).

Just one week prior to the publication of Horgan’s article, science writer Dennis Overbye published an article in the New York Times on the same subject. He reported on an origin-of-life conference at Arizona State University in which two dozen top-ranking scientists from a variety of disciplines converged to discuss the problem. While Overbye touted the RNA World hypothesis, he noted that “one lesson of the meeting was how finicky are the chemical reactions needed for carrying out these simple-sounding functions,” and “even if RNA did appear naturally, the odds that it would happen in the right sequence to drive Darwinian evolution seem small.”

It’s not often that the public is made aware of the fact that scientists have no adequate naturalistic explanation for the origin of life, so it’s refreshing to see this being discussed by ideological opponents in venues as important as the New York Times.

Big Bang Cosmology and Atheism Go Together Like Peas in a Blender

by Jason Dulle

For millennia philosophers maintained that the universe is eternal. The philosophical payoff of this view was that it avoided the God question. If the universe has always been, it did not need a creator. The emergence of the Big Bang theory in the early part of the 20^th century, however, changed all of that. The Big Bang model successfully predicted that the universe–including all spatio-temporal-material reality–had an absolute origin at a point in the finite past, from which it expanded, and continues to expand today.

The theistic implications of this model were recognized instantly. If the universe began to exist, it seemed to require a supernatural cause (one outside the confines of the natural world). That’s why it was met with fierce opposition, and why it took several decades and many lines of empirical confirmation to become the reigning paradigm it is today. Even now, cosmogenists continue to put forth alternative models in hopes of averting the beginning of the universe, many of which are little more than exercises in metaphysical speculation, incapable of both verification and falsification.

While not friendly to an atheistic worldview, many atheists eventually made their peace with the empirical evidence, and accepted the theory. But the theistic implications of a temporally finite universe have not gone away. Anything that begins to exist requires a cause. If the universe began to exist, what caused it to exist? It could not be a natural law, because natural laws originated with the universe. It could not be self-caused, because this is incoherent. Something cannot bring itself into existence, for that would entail its existence prior to its existence.

The atheist has two options. He can either admit to the existence of an external cause of the universe, or affirm that the universe is uncaused. For most atheists the first option is out of the question. An external cause of the universe looks too much like God: immaterial, eternal, non-spatial, intelligent, and personal. That leaves them the second option. But this won’t do either. The causal principle is one of the most basic intuitions we have. Things don’t just pop into existence uncaused from nothing, so why think the universe did? If everything that begins to exist has a sufficient cause, on what grounds is the origin of the universe excepted? If one excepts it on the basis that it is impossible to have a cause prior to the first event, they are guilty of begging the question in favor of atheism, for they are assuming that physical reality is the only reality, and thus the only possible cause of the Big Bang must be a physical cause. But it is entirely plausible that the external cause of the Big Bang was an eternal, non-physical reality. The only way to demonstrate that the universe cannot have a cause, then, is to demonstrate that the existence of an eternal, non-physical reality like God is impossible. But the very beginning of the universe is an argument for such a being’s existence!

Some atheists, recognizing the problem the principle of causal sufficiency makes for the atheistic worldview, cling to an eternal universe despite the scientific and philosophic evidence to the contrary. They recognize that it is nonsense to think something can come from nothing, uncaused. Something can only come from something. From nothing, nothing comes. If there was ever a time when nothing existed (as the Big Bang model predicts), then of necessity there would be nothing still, because nothing has no potential to become something. And yet there is something, so there could not have been a time when nothing existed. As a matter of historical fact, there can’t ever be a time when there was nothing. Something must exist eternally. If something must exist eternally, and the universe is not that something, then something resembling the God of theism must exist. Rather than admit the obvious-that this is evidence for the existence of God-these atheists reject the scientific and philosophical evidence for a finite universe, and assert that the universe must exist eternally.

What’s important to see, here, is that this sort of atheist is not being intellectually honest with the evidence. He has an a priori philosophical and volitional commitment to atheism, and that commitment biases him to such an extent that he will not accept the destination to which the rational evidence leads. Only theism is consistent with the evidence, and consistent with reason. While I commend atheists who reject the notion that the universe could come into being from nothing totally uncaused as an irrational leap of faith, I admonish them to go one step further, and recognize that the principle that something only comes from something, combined with the scientific an philosophical evidence for the finitude of the universe, supports theism, not atheism. To be consistent and honest with the data, they should accept the finitude of the universe, and admit that its existence requires a personal and supernatural cause.

The Biblical Teaching on Judgmentalism: Setting the Record Straight

by Jason Dulle

Christians are often accused of being judgmental by non-Christians—and sometimes, even by fellow-Christians. Indeed, it’s not uncommon to even hear non-Christians quote Jesus’ words in Matthew 7:1 against Christians: “Judge not, lest you be judged.” (even if they’ve never read a page from the Bible in their life!) I am persuaded that both the church and the culture at large have failed to understand the Biblical teaching on judgmentalism. Before I explain, let’s look at a few more Biblical passages often cited in support of non-judgmentalism:

1 Cor 4:3-5 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. 4 For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God. (ESV)

1 Cor 5:12-13 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.” (ESV) [talking about executing punishment]

James 4:11-12 Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. 12 There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor? (ESV)

Most people understand judgmentalism to refer to anyone who tells another person that what s/he is doing is wrong; i.e. an expression of moral disapproval. There are two reasons we can be confident that this is not the meaning of these passages. First, it is a contradiction to tell a person they are wrong for telling other people they are wrong. Secondly, Jesus, Paul, Peter, James, and other Biblical writers often expressed their moral disapproval of a host of behaviors and attitudes. Indeed, in one of the verses just quoted (1 Corinthians 5:13) Paul instructed the church to exercise judgment against the erring brother! So what does the Bible mean when it says “judge not?” The Biblical notion of judgmentalism refers to “an inappropriate sense of moral superiority over another because of that person’s moral failures,”[1] and/or a premature/inappropriate pronouncement regarding someone’s eternal destiny.

While people like to focus on Jesus’ statement in Matthew 7:1 not to judge, they fail to read on further in the chapter where Jesus called certain individuals “pigs,” “dogs” (7:6) and “wolves in sheep’s clothing” (7:15)! John records Jesus as commanding us to make judgments: “Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment” (John 7:24). What Jesus was opposed to was not making moral distinctions between right and wrong or calling a spade a spade, but rather a critical and judgmental spirit stemming from a sense of moral superiority.

In Matthew 7:3-5 Jesus said, “Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye,’ while there is a beam in your own? 5 You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” (NET) Here Jesus warned against heaping criticism and condemnation on others without first examining our own behavior (hypocritical judgment). He was speaking in particular of religious leaders who harshly condemn others for moral failures while justifying their own. Jesus didn’t have a problem with someone pointing out the speck in his brother’s eye, but He wanted it to be done in the proper order: first take care of your own moral shortcomings, and then you can proceed on to pointing out the shortcomings of others. That’s why Jesus said “First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” This is not a call for non-judgmentalism, but rather for a proper ordering of judgment: judging ourselves before judging others (self-examination before others-examination). Jesus requires that we make moral judgments, but we must convey those moral judgments in love, and only after we have examined ourselves to make sure we are not passing judgment hypocritically.

Paul’s teaching is in line with Jesus’. Paul asked the Corinthians, “For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?” (1 Corinthians 5:12) According to Paul it is the duty of Christians to judge the behavior of fellow-Christians. Earlier in the same chapter Paul demanded that man who was having a sexual relationship with his step-mother be “turn[ed]…over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord,” (1 Corinthians 5:5) even declaring that he had judged him (1 Corinthians 5:3). Not only did Paul express his moral disapproval of this man’s actions in no uncertain terms, but he even prescribed that he be punished for his wrongdoing.

Judgmentalism is wrong, but moral judgments themselves are inescapable, morally justified, necessary, and integral to the Christian worldview. So the next time you are accused of violating the Biblical command to “judge not” for making and expressing moral distinctions, set the record straight regarding the Bible’s teaching.

---

[1]Paul Copan, “Who Are You to Judge Others?”—In Defense of Making Moral Judgments” available from http://www.rzim.org/publications/essay_arttext.php?id=9; Internet; accessed 05 August 2005, citing Caroline J. Simon, “Judgmentalism,” Faith and Philosophy 6 (July 1989): 275-287.