Disappointment

Passages

Every passage tagged with this emotion in the Vela corpus. Search the body text, narrow by source or register, click through to a book’s profile to see how the passage sits with the rest of the work.

Page 23 of 189 · 20 per page

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  If he, nevertheless, accepted this horrible decree, he sacrificed his reason and heart to the, rigid laws of logic and to the letter of the Scripture as he understood it. We must honor him for his obedience, but as he claimed no infallibility, as an interpreter, we must be allowed to challenge his interpretation. Zwingli, as already remarked, was the first and the only Reformer who entertained and dared to express the charitable hope and belief in universal infant salvation by the atonement of Christ, who died for all. The Anabaptists held the same view, but they were persecuted as heretics by Protestants and Catholics alike, and were condemned in the ninth article of the Augsburg Confession.841 The Second Scotch Confession of 1590 was the first and the only Protestant Confession of the Reformation period which uttered a testimony of abhorrence and detestation of the cruel popish doctrine of infant damnation.842 But gradually the doctrine of universal infant salvation gained ground among Arminians, Quakers, Baptists, Wesleyans, Presbyterians, and is now adopted by almost all Protestant divines, especially by Calvinists, who are not hampered by the theory of baptismal regeneration.843 Zwingli, as we have previously shown, was equally in advance of his age in regard to the salvation of pious heathens, who die in a state of readiness for the reception of the gospel; and this view has likewise penetrated the modern Protestant consciousness.844 Defence of the Doctrine of Predestination. Calvin defended the doctrine of predestination in his Institutes, and his polemical writings against Pighius, Bolsec, and Castellio, with consummate skill against all objections, and may be said to have exhausted the subject on his side of the question. His arguments were chiefly drawn from the Scriptures, especially the ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans; but he unduly stretched passages which refer to the historical destiny of individuals and nations in this world, into declarations of their eternal fate in the other world; and he undervalued the proper force of opposite passages (such as Ezek. 33:11; 18:23, 32; John 1:29; 3:16; 1 John 2:2; 4:14; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9) by a distinction between the secret and revealed will of God (voluntas arcani and voluntas beneplaciti), which carries an intolerable dualism and contradiction into the divine will. He closes the whole discussion with this sentence: "Now while many arguments are advanced on both sides, let our conclusion be to stand astonished with Paul at so great a mystery; and amidst the clamor of petulant tongues let us not be ashamed to exclaim with him, ’O man, who art thou that repliest against God?’ For, as Augustin justly contends, it is acting a most perverse part to set up the measure of human justice as the standard by which to measure the justice of God." Very true; but how can we judge of God’s justice at all without our own sense of justice, which comes from God?

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  CHAPTER XII. CALVIN’S SECOND SOJOURN AND LABORS AT GENEVA. 1541–1564. The sources on this and the following chapters in § 81, p. 347. § 93. The State of Geneva after the expulsion of the Reformers. I. The correspondence in Opera, vols. X. and XI., and Herminjard, Vols. V., VI., and VII.—Annal. Calv, XXI. 235–282.—The Chronicles of Roset and Bonivard; the histories of Spon, Gaberel, Roget, etc. II. Henry, I. ch. XIX.—Stähelin, I. 283–299.—Dyer, 113–123.—Kampschulte, I. 342 sqq.—Merle D’Aubigné, bk. XI. chs. XVIII. (vol. VI. 610 sqq.) and XIX. (vol. VII. 1 sqq.). C. A. Cornelius (Cath.): Die Rückkehr Calvins nach Genf. München, 1889. Continuation of his essay, Die Verbannung Calvins aus Genf. München, 1886. Both in the Transactions of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences. The answer to Sadolet was one of the means of saving Geneva from the grasp of popery, and endearing Calvin to the friends of freedom. But there were other causes which demanded his recall. Internal disturbances followed his expulsion, and brought the little republic to the brink of ruin. Calvin was right in predicting a short régime to his enemies. In less than a year they were demoralized and split up into factions. In the place of the expelled Reformers, two native preachers and two from Bern were elected on the basis of the Bernese customs, but they were below mediocrity, and not fit for the crisis. The supremacy of the State was guarded. Foreigners who could not show a good practical reason for their residence were banished; among them, even Saunier and Cordier, the rectors of the schools who faithfully adhered to the Reformers. There were three main parties in Geneva, with subdivisions. 1. The government party was controlled by the syndics of 1538 and other enemies of the Reformers. They were called Articulants or, by a popular nickname, Artichauds,605 from the twenty-one articles of a treaty with Bern, which had been negotiated and signed by three counsellors and deputies of the city—Ami de Chapeaurouge, Jean Lullin, and Monathon. The government subjected the Church to the State, and was protected by Bern, but unable to maintain order. Tumults and riots multiplied in the streets; the schools were ruined by the expulsion of the best teachers; the pulpit lost its power; the new preachers became objects of contempt or pity; pastoral care was neglected; vice and immorality increased; the old licentiousness and frivolities, dancing, gambling, drunkenness, masquerades, indecent songs, adulteries, reappeared; persons went naked through the streets to the sound of drums and fifes. Moreover, the treaty with Bern, when it became known, was very unpopular because it conceded to Bern the rights of sovereignty. The Council of Two Hundred would not submit to it because it sacrificed their liberties and good customs. But the judges of Bern decided that the Genevese must sign the treaty and pay the costs. This created a great commotion.

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  Luther thought the preaching of the gospel would bring about all the necessary changes, but he had to complain bitterly, at the end of his life, of the dissolute manners of the students and citizens at Wittenberg, and seriously thought of leaving the city in disgust.712 Calvin knew well enough that the ideal could only be imperfectly realized in this world, but that it was none the less our duty to strive after perfection. He often quotes Augustin against the Donatists who dreamed of an imaginary purity of the Church, like the Anabaptists who, he observes, "acknowledge no congregation to belong to Christ, unless it be in all respects conspicuous for angelic perfection, and who, under pretext of zeal, destroy all edification." He consents to Augustin’s remark that "schemes of separation are pernicious and sacrilegious, because they proceed from pride and impiety, and disturb the good who are weak, more than they correct the wicked who are bold." In commenting on the parable of the net which gathered of every kind (Matt. 13:47), he says: "The Church while on earth is mixed with good and bad and will never be free of all impurity ... . Although God, who is a God of order, commands us to exercise discipline, he allows for a time to hypocrites a place among believers until he shall set up his kingdom in its perfection on the last day. As far as we are concerned, we must strive to correct vices and to purge the Church of impurity, although she will not be free from all stain and blemish till Christ shall separate the goats from the sheep."713 Calvin discusses the subject of discipline in the twelfth chapter of the fourth book of his Institutes. His views are sound and scriptural. "No society," he says at the outset, "no house can be preserved in proper condition without discipline. The Church ought to be the most orderly society of all. As the saving doctrine of Christ is the soul of the Church, so discipline forms the nerves and ligaments which connect the members and keep each in its proper place. It serves as a bridle to curb and restrain the refractory who resist the doctrine of Christ; or as a spur to stimulate the inactive; and sometimes as a father’s rod to chastise, in mercy and with the gentleness of the spirit of Christ, those who have grievously fallen away. It is the only remedy against a dreadful desolation in the Church." One of the greatest objections which he had against the Roman Church of his day was the utter want of discipline in constant violation of the canons.

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  Vergerio, formerly a friend of Curio, charged him with the Pelagian heresy and with teaching that men may be saved without the knowledge of Christ, though not without Christ.951 Curio advanced also the hopeful view that the kingdom of heaven is much larger than the kingdom of Satan, and that the saved will far outnumber the lost.952 Such opinions were disapproved by Peter Martyr, Zanchi, Bullinger, Brenz, John a Lasco, and all orthodox Protestants of that age, as paradoxical and tending to Universalism. But modern Calvinists go further than Curio, at least in regard to the large majority of the saved.953 § 131. The Italian Antitrinitarians in Geneva. Gribaldo, Biandrata, Alciati, Gentile. See Lit. in § 127, and Sandius: Bibliotheca antitrinitaria. Trechsel (I. 277–390) is still the best authority on the early Antitrinitarians in Switzerland, and gives large extracts from the sources. Fock (I. 134) has only a few words on them.—Comp. in addition, Heberle: G. Blandrata, in the "Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie," for 1840, No. IV. Dorner: Hist. of Christology, German ed., II. 656 sqq. The antitrinitarian leaven entered the Italian congregation at Geneva during and after the trial of Servetus, but was suppressed by the combined action of the Swiss Churches. This constitutes the last chapter of Antitrinitarianism in Switzerland. Several Italian refugees denounced the execution of Servetus, adopted his views and tried to improve them, but were far inferior to him in genius and originality. They circulated libels on Calvin, and ventilated their opinions in the weekly conference meetings of the Italian congregation, which were open to questions and free discussions. 1. Matteo Gribaldo, a noted professor of jurisprudence at Padua, bought the estate of Farges in the territory of Bern, near Geneva, and spent there a part of each year. He attended the Italian meetings on his visits to the town. During the trial of Servetus he openly expressed his disapproval of civil punishment for religious opinions, and maintained that everybody should be allowed to believe what he pleased. He at first concealed his views on the doctrine of Servetus, except among intimate friends. After an examination before the Council, he was ordered to leave the city on suspicion of heretical opinions on the Trinity (1559). These opinions were crude and undigested. He vacillated between dyotheism or tritheism and Arianism. He could not conceive of Father and Son except as two distinct beings or substances: the one begetting, the other begotten; the one sending, the other sent. He compared their relation to that between Paul and Apollos, who were two individuals, yet one in the abstract idea of the apostolate. Before his dismission from Geneva he had, through the influence of Vergerio, received an appointment us professor of law in the University of Tübingen. Passing through Zürich he called on Bullinger, and complained bitterly of the conduct of Calvin. He gained the applause of the students in Tübingen, and was often consulted by Duke Christopher of Würtemberg on important matters.

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  du protest. français," Nos. XVI. and XVII., 1867 and 1868.— Em. Brossoux: Séb. Chasteillon, Strasbourg, 1867.—B. Riggenbach, in Herzog2, III. 160 sqq.—Lutteroth: Castallion in Lichten-berger, II. 672–677.—*La France Protestante (2d ed.): Chateillon, tom. IV. 122–142.—*Ferd. Buisson: Sébastien Castellion, Paris, 1892, 2 vols. Castellio was far superior to Bolsec as a scholar and a man, and lived in peace with Calvin until differences of opinion on predestination, free-will, the Canticles, the descent into Hades, and religious toleration made them bitter enemies. In the beat of the controversy both forgot the dignity and moderation of a Christian scholar. Sebastian Castellio or Castalio was born at Chatillon in Savoy, in 1515, six years after Calvin, of poor and bigoted parents.902 He acquired a classical and biblical education by hard study. He had a rare genius for languages, and mastered Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. In 1540 he taught Greek at Lyons, and conducted the studies of three noblemen. He published there a manual of biblical history under the title Dialogi sacri, which passed through several editions in Latin and French from 1540 to 1731. He wrote a Latin epic on the prophecies of Jonah; a Greek epic on John the Baptist, which greatly delighted Melanchthon; two versions of the Pentateuch, with a view to exhibit Moses as a master in all the arts and sciences; a translation of the Psalms, and other poetic portions of the Old Testament. These works were preparatory to a complete Latin translation of the Bible, which he began at Geneva, 1542, and finished at Basel, 1551. It was dedicated to King Edward VI. of England, and often republished with various improvements. He showed some specimens in manuscript to Calvin, who disapproved of the style. His object was to present the Bible in classical Latinity according to the taste of the later humanists and the pedantic Ciceronianism of Cardinal Bembo. He substituted classical for biblical terms; as lotio for baptismus, genius for angelus, respublica for ecclesia, collegium for synagoge, senatus for presbyterium, furiosi for daemoniaci. He sacrificed the contents to style, obliterated the Hebraisms, and weakened the realistic force, the simplicity and grandeur of the biblical writers. His translation was severely criticised by Calvin and Beza as tending to secularize and profane the sacred book, but it was commended as a meritorious work by such competent judges as Melanchthon and Richard Simon. Castellio published also a French version of the Bible with notes (1555), but his French was not nearly as pure and elegant as his Latin, and was severely criticised by Beza. He translated portions of Homer, Xenophon, the Dialogues of Ochino, and also two mystical books, the Theologia Germanica (1557), and, in the last year of his life, the Imitatio Christi of Thomas à Kempis,—"e latino in latinum," that is, from monkish into classical Latin,—omitting, however, the fourth book. Castellio was a philologist and critic, an orator and poet, but not a theologian, and unable to rise to the lofty height of Calvin’s views and mission.

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  His controversial tracts are full of bitterness. He combined a mystical with a sceptical tendency.903 He was an anachronism; a rationalist before Rationalism, an advocate of religious toleration in an age of intolerance. Castellio became acquainted with Calvin at Strassburg, and lived with him in the same house (1540). Calvin appreciated his genius, scholarship, and literary industry, and, on his return to Geneva, he secured for him a call as rector of the Latin school at a salary of four hundred and fifty florins (November, 1541), in the place of his old teacher, Maturin Cordier. He treated him at first with marked kindness and forbearance. In 1542, when the pestilence raged, Castellio offered to go to the hospital, but he was either rejected as not qualified, not being a minister, or he changed his mind when the lot fell on him.904 Early in the year 1544, Castellio took offence at some of Calvin’s theological opinions, especially his doctrine of predestination. He disliked his severe discipline and the one-man-power. He anticipated the rationalistic opinion on the Song of Solomon, and described it as an obscene, erotic poem, which should be stricken out of the canon.905 He also objected to the clause of Christ’s descent into Hades in the Apostles’ Creed, or rather to Calvin’s figurative explanation of it, as being a vicarious foretaste of eternal pain by Christ on the cross.906 For these reasons Calvin opposed his ordination, but recommended an increase of his salary, which the Council refused, with the direction that he should keep better discipline in the school.907 He also gave him an honorable public testimony when he wished to leave Geneva, and added private letters of recommendation to friends. Castellio went to Lausanne, but soon returned to Geneva. In April, 1544, he asked the Council to continue him in his position for April, May, and June, which was agreed to.908 In a public discussion on some Scripture text in the weekly congregation at which about sixty persons were present, May 30, 1544, he eulogized St. Paul and drew an unfavorable contrast between him and the ministers of Geneva, charging them with drunkenness, impurity, and intolerance. Calvin listened in silence, but complained to the Syndics of this conduct.909 Castellio was summoned before the Council, which, after a patient hearing, found him guilty of calumny, and banished him from the city.910 He went to Basel, where the liberal spirit of Erasmus had not yet died out. He lived there several years in great poverty till 1553, when he obtained a Greek

• From Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and Deutero-Canonical Books (2018)

  Minimum Extent of Solomon’s Kingdom. THE REIGN OF SOLOMON (1 KINGS 3–11) The reign of Solomon is described in 1 Kings as a golden age. “Judah and Israel were as numerous as the sand by the sea; they ate and drank and were happy. Solomon was sovereign over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates to the land of the Philistines, even to the border of Egypt; they brought tribute and served Solomon all the days of his life” (1 Kgs 4:20-21). Or again: “Thus King Solomon excelled all the kings of the earth in riches and in wisdom. The whole earth sought the presence of Solomon to hear his wisdom, which God had put in his mind. Every one of them brought a present, objects of silver and gold, garments, weaponry, spices, horses, and mules, so much year by year” (10:23- 24). He is said to have entered into marriage alliances with all the surrounding peoples, Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite, and even to have received a daughter of the pharaoh in marriage. He engaged in extensive building projects in Jerusalem, including his own palace, a house for Pharaoh’s daughter, and, most famously, the temple. He is also credited with building up Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer. He engaged in international trade and imported gold from Ophir (possibly in southern Arabia) and Tarshish (Spain?). The queen of Sheba (modern Yemen?) came to visit laden with precious goods. Modern historians are skeptical about this account of Solomon’s grandeur. Archaeology has shown that Jerusalem was a very small place until the end of the eighth century B.C.E., when it suddenly expanded, swollen, perhaps by refugees after the fall of the northern kingdom. Prior to that time, it is argued, Jerusalem could have been no more than a local chiefdom, not unlike the traditional Canaanite city-states. The claim that all the territory from the border of Egypt to the Euphrates gave tribute to Solomon corresponds to the promise made to Abraham in Genesis 15. (Note also the references to Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites in 1 Kgs 9:20; and cf. Gen 15:19.) Scholars of an earlier generation accepted the historicity of Solomon’s empire and argued that the promise in Genesis 15 was formulated after the fact and could therefore be dated to Solomon’s reign. More recent scholars are skeptical (see the maps in chapter 12). The promise may only reflect the aspirations of the Judean kings, and the claims made for Solomon may have been inferred from the promise. The great wealth that Solomon supposedly enjoyed (1 Kgs 10:14) has left no trace in the material remains. Solomon’s fabulous empire is now regarded by many scholars as a fiction, a dream of glory from a later time. Remains at Megiddo, once claimed to be part of Solomonic stable structures. Ancient Trade Routes.

• From Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and Deutero-Canonical Books (2018)

  read without moralistic presuppositions, however, it gives a picture of human nature that is not comforting but may well be said to be revelatory. In the modern world, unfortunately, the Bible, and especially the Old Testament, is often viewed with suspicion because of its association with religious fundamentalism. There are, to be sure, laws in the Bible that can only be described as narrow-minded and intolerant, but the collection as a whole cannot be characterized in this way. As we have seen repeatedly, this is a collection of writings that is marked by lively internal debate and by a remarkable spirit of self-criticism, directed not only at the people of Israel but sometimes at the myths and certainties of the tradition. Think, for example of Job’s critique of the premises of the wisdom tradition or of Deuteronomistic theology, or of Jonah’s ironic portrayal of prophecy. It is somewhat ironic, then, that fundamentalistic readings of the Bible treat it so often as a bedrock of certainty. The portrayal of the Bible as a source of infallible truth does not arise from a reading of the Bible itself, but is a monstrous imposition upon it, even if it is one that is backed by a long tradition. One of the most persistent themes of the Hebrew Bible is the critique of idolatry. This applies not only to carved or molten statues, but to the human tendency to absolutize things that are merely part of the created order. Perhaps the greatest irony in the history of the Bible is that it itself has so often been treated as an idol and venerated with a reverential attitude while its message is ignored. Biblical figures from Abraham to Job do not hesitate to argue with the Almighty. The least that might be expected of readers of the Bible is that they bring the same critical spirit to bear on the biblical text. FURTHER READING J. Barr, Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983). Incisive critique of conservative views of biblical authority.

• From Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and Deutero-Canonical Books (2018)

  likely that we have two reports of the same incident from different vantage points. There is no doubt that Judah was brought to its knees by the Assyrians. For the survivors in Jerusalem, however, the more remarkable thing was that the city was not destroyed. This unexpected deliverance is celebrated in the story of the angel of the Lord. It contributed to the myth of the inviolability of Zion, which we have seen in connection with the temple ideology. According to Ps 46:5, “God is in the midst of the city; it shall not be moved; God will help it when the morning dawns.” Psalm 48 tells how kings who came up against Jerusalem were seized with panic and fled. It is possible that these psalms were inspired by the fact that Sennacherib did not destroy Jerusalem. More probably, the belief that the city was protected by YHWH was older, but it was powerfully reinforced by this deliverance. A century later, the confidence inspired by this myth would prove to be false when the city was destroyed by the Babylonians. The Conquest of Jerusalem Year 7, month of Kislimu: The king of Akkad moved his army into Haddi land, laid siege to the city of Judah, and the king took the city on the second day of the month Addaru. He appointed in it a [new] king to his liking, took heavy booty from it, and brought it into Babylon. Babyonian Chronicle, trans. A. Leo Oppenheim; ANET, 564. The End of the Kingdom of Judah The “good” King Hezekiah is followed in 2 Kings 21 by Manasseh, who reigns for fifty-five years and does “more wicked things than all the Amorites did, who were before him” (21:11). Manasseh does everything of which the Deuteronomists disapprove, restoring the high places that Hezekiah had torn down, erecting altars for Baal, and even making his son “pass through fire” as a burnt offering. He is also said to have practiced soothsaying and dealt with mediums. How far these practices were traditional in Judah and how far they were introduced by Manasseh under Assyrian influence, is disputed. At least the high places and the worship of Baal were traditional, although the cult of Baal

• From Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and Deutero-Canonical Books (2018)

  Human skull, recovered in plaster and painted, from Jericho, ca. 6000–4000 B.C.E. The Conquest Model and Archaeological Evidence American scholarship in the same period (early and mid-twentieth century) was dominated by the rise of archaeology. Unlike the stories of Genesis or Exodus, the account of the conquest in Joshua should admit of verification by archaeology. The Near East is dotted with tells, flat-topped mounds that were the sites of ancient cities. These mounds grew because of the frequency with which cities were destroyed. After the destruction, the ruins were leveled off and the city rebuilt on top of them. Typically, a “destruction layer” of debris was trapped under the new floors. If the cities of Canaan had been violently destroyed, there should be evidence that could be found by the archaeologists. The leader in this endeavor was William Foxwell Albright. He and his colleagues believed that the biblical account was essentially correct and could be supported by archaeological evidence. The Albrightian account of the history of Israel was given classic expression in John Bright’s History of Israel. In fact, however, the attempt to corroborate the biblical account by archaeological research backfired. There was indeed extensive upheaval in Canaan in the Late Bronze Age (thirteenth and twelfth centuries B.C.E.), the presumed time of the conquest. But the archaeological evidence does not match the biblical account of the conquest.

• From Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and Deutero-Canonical Books (2018)

  THE MOVE TO MONARCHY (1 SAMUEL 7–12) Samuel reappears on the scene in 1 Sam 7:3 and is said to judge Israel after Eli’s demise. Like Eli, he also functions as a priest. Unlike the older judges, however, he is not a warrior and does not lead in battle. He secures the success of the Israelites in battle by offering sacrifice, to which the Lord responds with thunder, and this is enough to put the Philistines to flight. This is the Deuteronomistic ideal of how to fight a battle; compare the capture of Jericho, where the Israelites also perform a ritual and the Lord makes the decisive intervention in the battle. Like Eli, however, Samuel has sons that do not follow in his footsteps, and so the people finally ask for a king. The exchange between Samuel and the people on this subject in 1 Samuel 8 is representative of the negative strand of 1 Samuel and of the Deuteronomistic History. The people are said to have rejected the kingship of YHWH. Moreover, the prediction of “the ways of the king” reflects disillusionment born of centuries of experience. This description of monarchy must have rung all too true after the kingship had been brought to an end by the Babylonians. But the description of the ways of the king is quite in line with the critiques of monarchy by the prophets, beginning with Elijah in 1 Kings 21. We shall find that the ways of the king begin to be exemplified already in the story of David, who takes the wife of a subject, and in a major way in the story of Solomon. The Israelites did not need to wait until the Babylonian exile to discover that monarchy could be oppressive. There are two accounts of the election of Saul as the first king. The first is a quaint story in which Saul goes to consult the seer Samuel about lost donkeys. This story speaks volumes about early Israelite society. Lost donkeys were a matter of concern for prophets and for future kings. When Samuel meets him, he anoints him as king. This is the first case in which a king is anointed in ancient Israel. Anointing with oil had various connotations. It was thought to give strength, to cleanse or purify, or it could be used for pleasure. In the case of the kingship, it represented strengthening. It is usually assumed that the custom was taken over from the Canaanites, but evidence for the Canaanite usage is lacking.

• From Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and Deutero-Canonical Books (2018)

  is also at odds with the prophetic tradition reflected in the Hebrew Bible. Prophets like Amos and Micah were extremely skeptical of the value of sacrifice and cultic worship, and accused the cultic establishments of their day of distorting the demands of the Lord. Jeremiah had derided those who set their hopes on “the temple of the L ORD , the temple of the L ORD .” That tradition was continued in Haggai’s own time by the prophet of Isaiah 66, who declared that heaven is God’s throne and earth his footstool, and asked, “What is this house that you would build for me?” Evidently, not everyone in Judah shared Haggai’s confidence in the efficacy of temple worship. At the urging of the prophets, the rebuilding of the temple was begun. Haggai 2 describes the rather anticlimactic reaction to the foundations: “Who is left among you that saw this house in its former glory? How does it look to you now? Is it not in your sight as nothing?” Ezra 3:12-13 reports that many old people who remembered the first temple wept when they saw the foundations of the new one, so that one could not distinguish between the joyful shout of the younger people and the weeping of their elders. Haggai was unabashed. It was only a matter of time until the glory of the Lord would be revealed: “Once again, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land, and I will shake all the nations, so that the treasure of all the nations shall come, and I will fill this house with splendor, says the L ORD of hosts” (2:7). The splendor of the new temple would be greater than that of its predecessor. It should be noted that this prophecy is dated less than two months after the opening oracle in chapter 1. Haggai’s prophecy was not fulfilled. The second chapter of his book attempts to deal with this problem. The prophet briefly suggests that the offerings of the people are unclean, but his basic response is to reaffirm his prediction; it has not happened yet, but it will certainly happen soon, “from this day on.” The failure of prophecy is often associated with apocalyptic and millenarian predictions of a later era. We shall find an example in the book of Daniel. But prophets had always made predictions that did not succeed. What is remarkable here is that such a prophecy should still be accepted as inspired and canonical by later generations. The reason, perhaps, was that Haggai had succeeded in his mission

• From Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and Deutero-Canonical Books (2018)

  sympathy for messianic dreams. The predominance of priests and Levites in the list of returned exiles presumably reflects the historical reality but also reflects the priestly orientation of the author or editor, which is similar to that of Chronicles. Sheshbazzar disappears quickly and silently from the stage of history. According to Ezra 5:16, it was he who laid the foundation of the temple. Yet in Ezra 3 it is Joshua and Zerubbabel who take the lead in rebuilding the temple, and the book of Zechariah explicitly credits Zerubbabel with laying the foundation (Zech 4:9). Zerubbabel’s activity was in the reign of Darius, nearly two decades after the return. The book of Ezra, however, obscures the lapse of time. The uncritical reader most readily supposes that the “seventh month” of Ezra 3:1, when Joshua and Zerubbabel build the altar, is in the year of the initial return. Similarly Ezra 3:8 says that Zerubbabel and Joshua laid the foundation “in the second year after their return.” If this is true, however, then Joshua and Zerubbabel must have been part of a second return some eighteen years after the initial one. The description of the mixed reaction of the people when they saw the foundation of the new temple (Ezra 3:12-13) is paralleled in Hag 2:3, which also notes that some people were disappointed with its reduced size. The account in Ezra obscures the fact that there was a lapse of approximately twenty years between the initial return and the eventual building of the temple. The book of Haggai explains this delay by suggesting that people were more concerned to build their own houses than to rebuild the temple. In the book of Ezra, any delay in the rebuilding is explained by the opposition of “the adversaries of Judah” (4:1). These people offered to join in the building, “for we worship your God as you do, and we have been sacrificing to him ever since the days of King Esarhaddon of Assyria who brought us here.” The implication is that the people who were in the land when the exiles returned were the descendants of the settlers brought to northern Israel by the Assyrians (2 Kgs 17:24; the king is identified in the context as Shalmaneser). It is indeed likely that the people of Samaria, who had their own governor, hoped to exercise influence over Jerusalem. But there must also have been some people who were native Judeans who had not been deported and who expected, reasonably

• From Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and Deutero-Canonical Books (2018)

  Intricate ivory decoration from Samaria depicting a falcon-headed god (Horus, associated with monarchy?) kneeling next to a seated Maat figure. Israel Museum, Jerusalem. The Central Oracles The understanding of the exodus and of the election of Israel is brought to the fore immediately in Amos 3:2: “You alone have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.” This brief oracle could be read as an abbreviated covenant lawsuit: “You alone have I known; therefore you should have kept the commandments, but since you did not, I will punish you.” It is more likely, however, that Amos is alluding to and subverting the common Israelite understanding of the exodus. If YHWH has known Israel alone, this should be good news. It should lead to a promise of divine blessing and support, such as was given to Abraham and David. As in the series of oracles against the nations, Amos subverts the expectations of his hearers. There is no doubt that the exodus had been celebrated at Bethel from the time of Jeroboam I. Amos does not dispute that YHWH brought Israel out of Egypt, but he questions the significance attached to it. For him, election only means greater responsibility. Israel has less excuse for its misconduct than other peoples. The sayings in Amos 3:3-8 are a rare quasi-philosophical reflection on the premises of the prophecies. Amos does not claim that his revelation is a bolt from the blue or that he is telling his audience anything that they could not know by themselves. The reasoning is similar to what we often find in Near Eastern wisdom literature, and that we shall meet again in the book of Proverbs. Things do not happen randomly. Actions have predictable consequences. Consequently, disaster does not befall a city “unless the L ORD has done it”(3:6). In the context there is no reference to any specific disaster, but the comment is ominous. Disaster will surely befall Samaria and all of the kingdom of Israel. It is the contention of Amos that this can happen only because of the Lord, presumably as a punishment. Amos may be described as a mono-Yahwist, if not a strict monotheist. He believes that everything that happens can be attributed to the Lord. He acknowledges no other forces that might be responsible. The passage

• From Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and Deutero-Canonical Books (2018)

  spirit?” This would be a reference to Gen 2:24, which says that man and wife became “one flesh.” The remainder of the verse, “and what does the one seek? Godly offspring,” can also be read against the background of Genesis. In Gen 1:28 the only command given to the primal couple is to “be fruitful and fill the earth.” On this reading, Malachi sees marriage as a covenant to which God is the witness, and which has as its goal the procreation of godly children. He does not appear to have anyplace for divorce. The opening statement in Mal 2:16 can now be read in a new light: “Have we not all one father?” The appeal is to creation and is meant to unify the community, not tear it apart. The discussion of divorce in Malachi inevitably brings to mind an episode in Ezra 10, which is most probably dated to 458 B.C.E. On his return to Jerusalem, Ezra was horrified to find that Jewish men had married foreign women, and he compelled them to divorce the women and send them away with their children. We do not know the exact date of Malachi, but it clearly dates from the Persian period. If the reading of Malachi proposed here is correct, the prophet would have agreed with Ezra in condemning marriage with foreign women because of the potential for idolatry. But he would have disagreed emphatically with Ezra’s solution because he saw divorce as contrary to the order of creation in Genesis. Marriage to foreign women was regrettable, but the solution was to raise godly children, not send them away. We are not sure, however, whether Malachi had Ezra in mind at all. Malachi’s pronouncements on divorce mark a change in traditional Jewish attitudes to marriage. Divorce would still be accepted by mainstream Judaism, but Malachi points to the emergence of a stricter view of marriage as indissoluble. The basis for that view was found in the statement in Genesis that man and wife were one flesh. This stricter view was later developed in the Dead Sea Scrolls and receives a famous endorsement in the New Testament in the saying attributed to Jesus, “What God has joined together, let no one separate” (Matt 19:6). Like a Refiner’s Fire

• From Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and Deutero-Canonical Books (2018)

  Abijah (Abijam) received a brief and negative notice in the earlier history (1 Kgs 15:1-8). In 2 Chronicles he receives a whole chapter (13) and is represented as a staunch defender of Davidic sovereignty over all Israel. In accordance with the typical emphasis of Chronicles, he denounces Jeroboam for having “driven out the priests of the L ORD , the descendants of Aaron, and the Levites” (13:9). Asa The treatment of Asa (14:1—16:14) is almost three times as long as that of 1 Kgs 15:9-24. His reign is divided into two periods: a long phase of fidelity and a much shorter phase of infidelity. The first phase is marked by complete reliance on the Lord and consequent success. The turning point comes when he is attacked by King Baasha of Israel and is moved to rely on Ben-hadad of Aram. For this he is rebuked by a prophet, and he retaliates by confining his critic. The displeasure of the Lord with this later phase is reflected in the disease of Asa’s feet. The basic outline of this career is already found in 1 Kings, where Asa is credited with reform of the cult in his early years but is said to have relied on Ben-hadad after Baasha’s attack. The account in Chronicles, however, is more elaborate and has a clearer moral message. Jehoshaphat Jehoshaphat is overshadowed by Ahab of Samaria in 1 Kings. He receives much more extensive treatment here (2 Chron 17:1—21:1). The notice in Kings is positive, except for the fact that he did not remove the high places (1 Kgs 22:41- 44). Kings also says that he removed the remaining male prostitutes from the land (22:46). Chronicles credits him with much more extensive reforms. He allegedly sent officials, priests, and Levites to all the cities of Judah “having the book of the law of the L ORD with them” (2 Chron 17:9). This would not have been possible in the Deuteronomistic History, since the book was only discovered later, in the reign of King Josiah. Because of this virtuous conduct,

• From Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and Deutero-Canonical Books (2018)

  mythological view of creation that must have been widely held in ancient Israel. In this account, creation involved stilling the Sea (Yamm) and striking down the sea monster Rahab. This description of creation goes farther than most of the allusions in the Psalms. God hangs the earth on nothing and draws a circle on the waters at the separation of light and darkness. Heaven is supported by pillars. This passage ranks with Psalm 104 as one of the major witnesses to an important account of creation that is quite different from anything in the book of Genesis. Job’s Self-Justification (Chapters 29–31) The final speech of Job in chapters 29–31 differs from his earlier outbursts. Up to this point, he had complained that his suffering was unjust but had not discussed his past conduct. Here he paints a picture of his prime, “when the Almighty was still with me, when my children were around me” (29:5). By his own account, he was a champion of righteousness: “eyes to the blind, and feet to the lame . . . a father to the needy, and I championed the cause of the stranger” (29:15-16). In return, he enjoyed respect: “Young men saw me and withdrew, and the aged rose up and stood” (29:8). Moreover, he thought he had a deal with God: “Then I thought, ‘I shall die in my nest, and I shall multiply my days like the phoenix; my roots spread out to the waters, with the dew all night on my branches” (29:18-19). In chapter 30, however, he expresses his profound disillusionment: “But now they make sport of me, those who are younger than I, whose fathers I would have disdained to set with the dogs of my flock” (30:1). He continues, in chapter 31, to set out what might have been fair punishment for various crimes: “If my heart has been enticed by a woman, and I have lain in wait at my neighbor’s door, then let my wife grind for another, and let other men kneel over her” (31:9-10); or: “if I have raised my hand against the orphan . . . then let my shoulder blade fall from my shoulder” (31:21-22). But there is considerable irony in all of this. Job is in no position to bargain with God. The fate that has already befallen him is worse than any of his imprecations. Moreover, he comes across as not only righteous but self- righteous. His contempt for the people he would not put with the dogs of his

• From Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and Deutero-Canonical Books (2018)

  QOHELETH (ECCLESIASTES) The book of Job may be said to represent a crisis in the wisdom tradition, arising from the realization that some of the most hallowed assumptions are proven false by experience. As we have seen in the case of Proverbs, the wisdom tradition does not rely on revelation of the kind that one finds in the Prophets. Essentially, it is an attempt to generalize on the basis of experience. But in traditional wisdom, students are not supposed to rely on their own experience. Rather, as Bildad put it, they should “inquire of bygone generations, and consider what their ancestors have found” (Job 8:8). Consequently, the supposedly empirical findings of past generations often hardened into dogma. In a sense, Job was recalling the tradition to its roots by reexamining its basis. It should be noted that even the conservative Elihu shows impatience with assumptions about the wisdom of age and tradition. The skeptical questioning of tradition in the biblical corpus reaches its high point in the book of Qoheleth or Ecclesiastes. The inclusion of this book in the canon of Scriptures is remarkable and was a matter of some controversy in antiquity. In the first century C.E. the rival schools of Shammai and Hillel were divided on the issue. The more conservative school of Shammai rejected it, but the Hillelites prevailed. Objections continued to be raised against the book as late as the fourth century C.E. because of its lack of coherence and its radical questioning of tradition. The name Qoheleth has never been satisfactorily explained. It has the form of a feminine participle but is used with reference to a man (the son of David, Qoh 1:1). It appears both with and without the definite article. The Greek form, “Ecclesiastes,” “member of an assembly,” assumes that the word is derived from qahal, “assembly.” A modern suggestion takes the word to mean “gatherer” or “assembler,” a designation that is reasonably appropriate in light of the content of the book. But the meaning is uncertain and remains obscure. The superscription of the book identifies Qoheleth as “the son of David, king in Jerusalem.” Qoheleth 1:12 repeats that he was king over Israel. He was

• From Little Sister: A Memoir (2019)

  Every one of you children was given to God as a tiny baby. You have a vocation. Trust me on that. I promise you. You have a vocation.” Then, his voice rising again, he repeated the words—emphasizing each one. “I tell you, you have a vocation.” I stood in silence, unable to craft a response that would mollify him. “The world is wicked out there,” he said ominously. My hands were shaking, my throat dry. Still nearly supine in his chair, Father took my hand in his and said softly, “I will pray for your soul.” I looked at Sister Catherine, hoping she would step in and relieve the tension. She tilted her head and gave the half smile that made her look motherly, and then she spoke. “Sister Anastasia, dear, I have some wonderful news for you. You were accepted into Vassar College. And Bates as well.” Before I could digest this momentous information, Father interrupted, his voice strident. “You’re not going to Vassar, are you?” “Oh, no,” Sister Catherine responded before I could. “She applied just so that our wonderful school would receive the accreditation it deserves. And we are so proud of her for doing her part to save our school.” Father paid no attention. “Vassar is the seat of all evil,” he said, hissing his words. “You will lose your immortal soul if you go there.” He shook a trembling finger at me. “Promise me that you will not go to Vassar! Promise me, my darling.” His voice trailed off. “Yes, Father, I promise you,” I said. He reached out his hand, and I knelt down next to him. Placing his hands on my head, he gently made the sign of the cross on my forehead. As I left the office, I felt shattered. My hard work for the Center had been successful—I’d been accepted at Vassar and at Bates. But my moment of glory, the triumph of winning the trophy for the Center, had been turned into a scene of anger. As I closed the door behind me, I struggled to hold back my tears. 49 Vassar, No Thank You 1966 “S it down, dear,” Sister Ann Mary spoke as she approached me with a letter in her hand. “I thought you might like to read the letter of acceptance you received from Vassar. I can’t tell you how proud we all are of you.” She meant everything she said, and I loved her for it. Reading the formally worded letter felt surreal. I took in the actual words: “A careful evaluation of your credentials leads us to believe that you…would contribute your own special qualities to the college community.” It ended with, “We congratulate you on being a successful candidate at a time when competition for admission to Vassar is keen.” I felt a surge of pride. Only 450 girls in the whole country would be going to Vassar in September as freshmen.

• From Little Sister: A Memoir (2019)

  As the cold winter weeks turned into spring, the novelty and excitement of the move from Cambridge to Still River began to wear off, and a new regimen, so different from life behind the red fence, revealed itself. Each day offered a few pieces of the jigsaw puzzle. Now, my first thought on waking was: What new rules will there be today? Sister Catherine was fully entrenched as the rule-maker, the de facto leader, and the chief disciplinarian at the Center. By springtime, birthday celebrations had been outlawed, supplanted by feast days. Father seemed thrilled by the idea. Rubbing his hands together, the gesture he used when he was agitated, he spoke from the altar. “Birthdays are worldly and of the devil. Who needs birthdays anyway?” he declared. “From now on, we’re going to celebrate only our feast days—no more birthdays.” For months I’d been dreaming about my tenth birthday, on August 16. The sun had a way of always shining on that day, and I’d been fantasizing about how magical it would be to spend the day playing in the fields. Now in a flash, my dream was dashed. Adding to the insult was the fact that the feast of my patron saint, Saint Anastasia, was celebrated on Christmas Day. No one will even think of me on Christmas , I thought, feeling cheated out of both a birthday and a feast day. * * * A few weeks after our move, Sister Catherine introduced the tea party. Was it a nostalgic throwback to the early days of the Center? Or was it perhaps a way for her to teach us old-fashioned manners? It was held each Thursday afternoon in the library, a large book-lined, wood-paneled room adjacent to Sister Catherine’s office. She herself played the role of hostess, sitting erect and cheerful at one end of the long library table, an elegant silver samovar set up in front of her. The Big Brothers and Sisters were invited, and the oldest of us children, wearing white gloves and having been instructed by Sister Catherine on the protocols, acted as servers. We were to be “seen but not heard,” she advised us as we took our seats silently on the brocade-covered, tall-backed, oak library chairs stationed along the side wall. That was until the adults entered, when we went into action. I could count on my parents to arrive early (and separately) and to stay until the very end. The moment they set foot in the library, I made a beeline for one of them. “Sister Elizabeth Ann, would you like some tea?” She answered with a smile, “Yes, please, dear.” “With milk or lemon?” Then I hurried over to Brother James Aloysius before anyone else could get to him. He would wink at me as I approached him, and he always said, “Thank you, my little princess,” as he selected cookies from the china platter I held with both hands. I felt like a princess serving my king.