A Middle Eastern Melting Pot: The Syncretistic Beginnings of Islam

The aim of this post is to uncover the syncretistic beginnings of the Islamic faith by examining the historical background and the religious context of the Arab culture before the rise of Islam. A brief look at the early adulthood of the prophet Muhammad will also provide necessary information in determining the structure of the religion and its background. The second portion of the paper will analyze the religious context of the Arab world prior to the institution of Islam in order to display Muhammad’s practice of borrowing various ideas from other religious traditions.

Historical Analysis

The peoples of Arabia had been nomadic for centuries. They thrived in tribal groups tethered together by a common occupation and essential water sources. The rise of Islam provided a cohesive bond for the people of the Middle East. Peter Riddell and Peter Cotterell write, “The Arabs were largely ignored by the two great empires of the sixth century: the Christian empire centered on Byzantium (Constantinople, the modern Istanbul), over to the west; and the Zoroastrian Sassanian empire to the east, in Persia.”[1] The peoples of Arabia had little solidarity because of their polytheistic religious practices and tribal separations. The only unifying factor for the Arab people was their common language, Arabic.

The city of Mecca had always been a city of trade and commerce; however, over the years many nomadic herdsmen moved from the arid wasteland of the Arabian Peninsula to the thriving metropolis. Though urbanization established much of the Arab culture; it came with great difficulty.  Riddell and Cotterell add, “They had no religion in common. What they had was a confusing mixture: the worship of sun and moon, and stars, probably borrowed from the Zoroastrians, the worship of strangely shaped or unusually large stones, the worship of the spirits of trees and wells and springs.” [2] The focal point of this polytheistic religious smorgasbord was the Ka’ba, which stood in Mecca. The Ka’ba was a cube-shaped storehouse for more than three hundred idols. This storehouse was cared for by the Quraysh tribe, which regulated and oversaw the pilgrimage to the sanctuary containing the Ka’ba.

The region was in great need for a cohesive religion that would not only, provide religious stability, but also establish a national identity for the people of the Near East. Emil Homerin writes, “The sixth and seventh centuries for this region were a time of transition that was marked by ongoing tribal disputes, oligarchic rule, and religious ferment.”[3] According to Islamic tradition, Muhammad thought deeply about the struggles of the Arab people and sought to provide a beneficial religious system that would establish cultural identity and religious unity through monotheistic worship

Muhammad Ibn Abdullah was born in 570. His mother, Amina, raised him until the age of six. After his mother died he was cared for by his grandfather, Abd al-Muttalib and his uncle, Abu Talib. Ibn Ishaq records that Mohammad traveled with Abu Talib’s trading caravan in Syria.[4] Through these journeys, Mohammad probably encountered various religious traditions and heard multiple stories from both Christianity and Judaism. Riddell and Cottrell argue, “He [Mohammad] may have contrasted what he saw in Syria, a people united in worship of one God, with the lot of the fragmented Arab peoples of his homeland, worshiping a multiplicity of idols.”[5]

The Arabians had no religious stability and were plagued with barbarism during the years of the jahiliyah, usually rendered “time of ignorance”. Mohammad believed that he was an inspired prophet for the peoples of Arabia and it was only a matter of time before this chaotic polytheism would be altered to form one of the most formidable monotheistic religions of the world. Philip Hitti writes, “In his anxiety to wean his people from pre-Islamic religious ideas, particularly from idolatry, the intensely monotheistic Mohammad declared that the new religion was to obliterate all that had gone before it.”[6] Mohammad’s iconoclastic fervor; however does not eclipse the reality that his formation of the Islamic faith was an amalgamation of several different religious traditions.

Little is know about the early childhood of Mohammad other than he was raised primarily by his grandfather, Abd al-Muttalib, and his uncle, Abu Talib. At the age of twenty-five, Mohammad married a wealthy Quaryshite woman, Khadijah. She was fifteen years older than Mohammad; however, his mind was set upon marrying her. Her influence upon Mohammad was great and her position in Meccan society allowed him access to more prestigious circles. His marriage to Khadijah gave him extended opportunities for leisure and musing.[7] At a cave in Hira, Mohammad is recorded have had his first revelation around 610 A.D. These revelations would one day be written down and collected to become the Qur’an.

Mohammad had hoped to convert his entire Quraysh tribe to Islam, but was forced to leave Mecca with his followers in 622. He traveled 250 miles north to the city of Yathrib. This particular event established Islam as a “community of believers” based primarily upon religious affiliation, rather than familial ties.[8] Yathrib, later called Medina, was the city where many more of his visions are said to have happened. Homerin writes, “Muhammad was both a prophet and a statesman, and following several years of conflict with the Quraysh and other tribes, the Muslims triumphantly entered Mecca, whose inhabitants converted to Islam in 630, two years before Muhammad’s death in 632.”[9]

The Arab world had little continuity, both culturally and religiously, prior to Islam.

Philip Hitti accurately describes the Arab setting prior to Mohammad’s rise of influence,

[Northern Arabia] in the century preceding the mission of Muhammad was ringed about with influences, intellectual, religious and material, radiating from Byzantine, Syrian (Aramaean), Persian and Abyssinian centres . . . Nevertheless the antiquated paganism of the peninsula seems to have reached the point where it failed any longer to meet the spiritual demands of the people . . . The stage was set, the moment was psychological, for the rise of a great religious and national leader.[10]

Religious Context

The spiritual climate of the Arabian Peninsula varied by geographic location. The pagan Arabian developed no particular theology or cosmology compared to the surrounding religious cultures. Hitti writes, “The Bedouin [Northern Arabia] religion represents the earliest and most primitive of Semitic belief. The South Arabian cults with their [elaborate polytheism] represent a higher and later stage of [religious] development.”[11] The Northern Arabian tribes practiced animisms and feared demonic forces called jinn. The gods were considered friendly while the jinn were considered extremely hostile.

Homerin notes, “Arabian society was in close contact with ancient Egyptian, Hellenistic, and Indo-Iranian cultures; and monotheistic and messianic ideas gradually spread throughout the Arabian Peninsula a few centuries prior to Islam . . .”[12] Nestorian Christians sent missionaries into northern Arabia and throughout the Middle East. Many Christians and Jews had immigrated further into southern Arabia in order to flee Roman persecutions. But even with the influences of the monotheistic immigrants, few Arabs embraced monotheism prior to the rise of Islam.

The Influence of Arab Polytheism

Islamic tradition arose from a polytheistic and animistic religious milieu. Several of the foundational elements of Islam find their roots buried deep within the sediment of ancient Near Eastern paganism. The name, Allah, was not always tethered to a monotheistic god. Homerin writes, “In the northern regions of Arabia and its perimeter, El or Ilah (“god”) was worshiped, as was a host of other deities.”[13] Ilah or Allah was believed to be a high god in comparison to many of the other pagan deities. Mohammad’s own father, Abdullah, was named in honor of this high god. His name literally means “servant of Allah”. In Arab polytheistic tradition, Allah ruled along side his daughters, Al ‘Uzza, al Lat, and Manah. These three goddesses had their own sanctuaries in the land, which later became the cradle of Islam.[14]

Very early in the history Islam, Mohammad favors the three daughters of Allah in a very un-monotheistic fashion. During this time Mohammad and his followers were experiencing inordinate amounts of persecution because of their belief in the one god, Allah. Mohammad made a concession while in Mecca in order to deescalate persecution and reach temporary compromise.  While he was reciting what is now Sura 53 he cried out, “Have you thought of al-Lat and al-‘Uzza and Manat the third, the other? . . . These are the exalted Gharaniq [birds?] whose intercession is approved.”[15] These words have been referred to as the Satanic Verses. The verse seems to indicate a plurality of gods, which eradicates the foundation of Mohammad’s teaching that there is one god and his name is Allah. The Mohammedan biographer, Ibn Ishaq, argues that Satan placed these heretical words on the tongue of Mohammad.[16] However, it seems very convenient to place blame on Satan while Mohammad and his followers felt immediate relief from their  polytheistic Qurayshite persecutors. The god, Allah, seemed to be established as a god in the Arab polytheistic tradition prior to Mohammad’s revelations; therefore, it is likely that he borrowed the name and tradition of Allah when constructing his Islamic system.

The Ka’ba, an Arab religious relic, has been at the center of Islamic faith from the beginning. The Ka’ba became a venerated holy fetish for the Islamic faith. Hitti writes, “[It] was an unpretentious cube-like building of primitive simplicity, originally roofless, serving as a shelter for a black meteorite which was [thought to be holy].”[17] The Ka’ba housed hundreds of pagan idols before the time of Mohammad in the city of Mecca. However, Mohammad maintained that the Ka’ba was originally constructed by Adam as a celestial prototype. Abraham and Ishmael later rebuilt the Ka’ba to be a holy place for worship.[18] Though the tradition of the black stone within the Ka’ba seems to have unusual significance for the Islamic faith, its polytheistic heritage reaffirms Mohammad’ religious amalgamation.

The Influence of Judaism

The Arabian prophet believed himself to be the final heir to the ancient Hebrew revelatory tradition. His connection with the Jewish tradition may have occurred while traveling through Syria with his uncle, Al-Talib. Charles Torrey writes, “Mohammed . . . received the material of his new faith and practice mainly from the Jews of the Hijaz [northern Arabia].[19] The dramatic influence of the Jewish tradition can been read through pages of the Qur’an; however, an even more dominating influence can be seen by comparing the essential practices of both Judaism and Islam. In the Islamic faith, there are five pillars or particular demands for every Muslim: the Shahada (statement of monotheism), the Salat (requirement to pray five times every day), the Zakat (giving of alms), the Sawm of Ramadan (ritual fasting), and the Hajj (Pilgrimage to Mecca).

Each of these elements seem to have roots in the Toranic traditions of the ancient Hebrews. The Shahada states, “[I profess that] There is no god but Allah, and Mohammad is the Prophet of Allah.” This statement affirms belief in monotheism and maintains that Allah’s word has been given through the prophet Mohammad. Deuteronomy 6:4-6 (the Shema) gives similar instruction to the people of Israel. Moses commands, “Listen, Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is One. Love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. These words that I am giving you today are to be in your heart” (Deut 6:4-6, ESV).[20] Mohammad’s Shahada seems to be patterned after the Jewish Shema in its proclamation of a monotheistic deity, its personal profession of belief, and the affirmation of the truth of the word of God.

The second pillar requires every Muslim to pray five times a day toward the holy city of Mecca. The Salat, although more demanding, models the practice of prayer in the Old Testament scriptures. Arland Hultgren notes, “The Old Testament assumes that prayer can be offered at any time and place. There are, however, prescribed times: confession is made on the day of Atonement; hours are set for daily prayer; and the Sabbath and other festivals are days for prayer.[21] Daniel 6:10 established a rabbinic tradition for daily prayer,  “[Daniel] went into his house. The windows in its upper room opened toward Jerusalem, and three times a day he got down on his knees, prayed, and gave thanks to his God . . .” Again, Mohammad’s acute understanding of the Jewish scriptures seems to influence his construction of Islamic practice.

Both the Zakat, Sawm of Ramadan, and Hajj point toward the established traditions of the Torah. The book of Leviticus repeatedly commands the Israelites to care for the poor in their community and act justly in relation to them (Lev 19:10; 19:15; 23:22; 25:25; 25:35; 25:39; 25:47; 27:8). The ritual fasting of Sawm of Ramadan mirrors many of the fasting and celebratory feasts of the Torah as well. The Sawm of Ramadan includes fasting during the day, feasting in the evening, and religious confession. These elements closely relate to different feast days commanded by God in Leviticus 23. The Hajj commands every able Muslim to make a journey to Mecca. There they are to pray at the Ka’ba and worship Allah. This centralized city for pilgrimage and prayer brings to mind the practice of the people of Israel. After the construction of the temple in Jerusalem, the Israelites would gather annually for the Day of Atonement and their prayers were continually directed toward Jerusalem (Dan 6:10). Mohammad seems to have streamlined the festivals and altered several particular elements of the Torah in order to fashion a systematic religious tradition.

The Influence of Christianity

Though less foundational in influence, Christianity helped to shape the doctrinal affirmations and trajectory of Islamic theology. Mohammad is recorded to have met a Christian while traveling with Al-Talib in Syria.[22] It is possible that Mohammad may have received information from Arian, Nestorian, and Monophysite Christians in northern Arabia. After the Church Councils of the 4^th and 5^th centuries, many of the rejected sects of Christianity emerged in the remotest parts of the Near East and North Africa. [23]

Many of the doctrinal assertions of the Qur’an are nothing more than rejections of particular Christian doctrines; while others seem to find support in the Old and New Testaments. Torrey writes, “The doctrines which fill the earliest pages of the Koran: the resurrection, the judgment, heaven and hell, the heavenly book, revelation through the angel Gabriel, the merit of certain ascetic practices, and still others, were quite . . . Christian.” [24]

Though Mohammad may have had some knowledge about Christian history, doctrine, and scripture; he most likely did not have copies of the scriptures. Otherwise, with his thirst for information would have led him quote more of the New Testament. There are, at least,  three passages in the Qur’an, which seem to be clearly dependent upon the Gospels of the New Testament( Sura 7:40; 57:13; 19:1-15).[25] Torrey concludes, “It is a fair conjecture that each and all of these three bits of Gospel tradition were delivered to him by his Jewish teachers.”[26]

The historical context of the Arabian Peninsula was poised for a religious movement that would solidify the region religiously and culturally. Mohammad’s early adult life prepared him to syncretistically adapt varies traditions in order to form a religious institution that would bond the peoples of Arabia together. However troubling Mohammad’s theology and religious tradition may be, it is apparent that his amalgamation of Arab Polytheism, Judaism, and Christianity brought together a region fractured by tribal disputes and enabled a land filled with spiritual disparity to become a unified region of the world.

---

[1] Peter G. Riddell, Peter Cotterell, Islam in Context: Past, Present, and Future (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 13.

 

[2] Ibid., 15.

[3] Emil Homerin, Religious Foundations of Western Civilization: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, comp. Jacob Neusner (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2006), 110.

[4] Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, trans. A. Guillaume (London: Oxford University Press, 1955), 25-30.

[5] Riddell and Cotterell, Islam in Context, 19.

[6] Philip K. Hitti, History of the Arabs: From the Earliest Times to the Present (London: Macmillian and Company Limited, 1960), 87.

[7] Riddell and Cotterell, Islam in Context, 21.

[8] Homerin, Religious Foundations of Western Civilization, 111.

[9] Ibid., 111.

[10] Hitti, History of the Arabs, 107-108.

[11] Hitti, History of the Arabs, 97.

[12] Homerin, Religious Foundations of Western Civilization, 109.

[13] Ibid., 107.

[14] Hitti, History of the Arabs, 98.

[15] Riddell and Cotterell, Islam in Context, 24.

[16] Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, 165-166.

[17] Hitti, History of the Arabs, 100.

[18] Qur’an 2:125.

[19] Charles C. Torrey, The Jewish Foundation of Islam (New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1967), 2.

[20] All Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version.

[21] Arland Hultgren, s.v. “prayer” Harper’s Bible Dictionary. Edited by Paul J. Achtemeier. (New York: Harper San Francisco, 1985).

[22] Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, 80.

[23] Philip Jenkins, The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia- and How It Died (New York: Harper Collins, 2008), 47.

[24] Torrey, The Jewish Foundation of Islam, 7.

[25] Ibid., 57.

[26] Ibid. 58.

The Divine Prerogative: Genesis 17

The story of Genesis depicts a holy God’s interaction with his creation. Throughout the beginning chapters, God creates all things and responds to the rebellion of his creation. His judgment of Adam and Eve portrays a redemptive motif that will guide the trajectory of the biblical story. God provides hope and salvation through his awful judgment.[1] His promise of a seed that would crush the head of the serpent serves to garnish hope through the first epoch of Genesis.

The call of Abram enunciates an active fulfillment of God’s promise in Genesis 3:15. Yahweh promises Abram, “I will make you into a great nation, I will bless you, I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, I will curse those who treat you with contempt, and all the peoples on earth will be blessed through you” (Gen 12:2-3)[2]

Abram receives Yahweh’s covenant promise in chapter 15, but his faith is quickly compromised by the influence of his wife. Abram fathered a son by Hagar, Sarah’s handmaiden. His impatience led him to pursue an heir without Yahweh’s approval or aid.

In chapter 17, Yahweh appeared before Abram and reaffirmed his covenant. The purpose of this passage displays the reality that Yahweh’s plans cannot be supplanted by human intervention. He purposefully affirms his covenant promise with Abram and specifically reveals the method of fulfillment, which will keep Abram from sharing in its glory. This purpose is articulated by three distinct speeches given by Yahweh. The first speech reaffirms the covenant established in chapters 12 and 15. The second speech explains how Abram would demonstrate his obedience to Yahweh through circumcision. The last speech specifies that Abram’s heir would be given through Sarah instead of Hagar. The aim of these speeches is to narrow the promise from a general blessing to Abram to a more specific fulfillment that only Yahweh could accomplish.[3] This passage eliminates Abram’s involvement in the outworking of the promise and accentuates the sovereignty of Yahweh.

The Reaffirmation of the Covenant

Genesis 17:1-27 is famed by an inclusio. In verse 1 and in verse 24, Abram is recorded to have been ninety-nine years old. Abram faithfully obeys the command of Yahweh to circumcise himself and his household. The age of Abram seems to serve as a tool both for dating the event and for making a theological exclamation about the miraculous ability of God.

Yahweh appears before Abram and announces his name. The name that is given here is not Yahweh, but rather El Shaddai (God Almighty)[4]. His introduction includes a brief explanation of the righteous requirements of their relationship followed by an overview of the covenant God made between them in chapter 15—that Yahweh would make Abram into a great nation.

Verse 3 begins the speeches of Yahweh. Abram falls upon his face before Yahweh demonstrating his devotion and homage. The words, And God said, highlight the beginning of each speech. Walter Brueggemann indicates that, “chapter 17 is ponderous, disciplined, and symmetrical . . . the promise to Abraham is here most fully and solemnly asserted.”[5] Out of all the peoples of the world, Yahweh has selected Abram to be his covenantal companion. This first speech displays the awesome breadth of God’s promise. He demonstrates the magnitude of his plan by asserting, “you shall be the father of a multitude of nations” (Gen 17:4, italics added). God explains the enormity of the promise. Yahweh would fulfill his promise to “make [Abram] a great nation” (Gen 12:2) and he clearly articulates the implications of his promise to make Abram’s seed as numerous as the stars. The character of the one who made the promise assures the certainty of Abram’s future; therefore, God changes Abram’s name to indicate that reality. Gordon Wenham writes, “The magnitude of the promise is marked by the change of Abram’s name to Abraham [father of a multitude].”[6]

Yahweh continues to outline the general terms of his covenant with Abraham in verses 6 through 8. He reaffirms the promised blessing to Abraham’s descendents previously given in Genesis 15:4. It is also important to notice the Edenic language of verse 6. Yahweh promises to make Abraham exceedingly fruitful. This promise was originally given to Adam in the Garden of Eden. John Sailhamer notes that the use of this vocabulary “[shows] the covenant with Abraham to be the means through which God’s original blessing would again be channeled to all mankind.”[7]

The general reaffirmation of the Abrahamic covenant displays the sovereign power of God. He promises Abraham that this covenant will be to “[Abraham] and [his seed] after [him] throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant” (Gen 17:7). The scale of this promise is such that no human could possibly provide its fulfillment. Therefore, it seems as though Yahweh is showing the greatness of his power contrasted with Abraham’s feeble attempt to obtain God’s blessing through Hagar.

The Keeping of the Covenant

The breadth of the covenant has been displayed through Yahweh’s first speech. His second speech articulates the way that Abraham is to “walk before [him]” (Gen 17:1). The way that Abraham is to participate in this covenant is not through ingenuity and marital creativity, but rather through faithful obedience to Yahweh’s commands.

Verse 9 begins with the words, And God said, revealing the start of a new speech. Notice that the primary subject in the first speech was the covenant, but in the second speech Abraham, himself, is the focus. Yahweh commands, “You shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations” (Gen 17:9). The covenantal obedience is later defined as ritual male circumcision.

Raphael Patai writes, “Abraham . . . was in his relationship to God an entirely passive recipient of God’s grace and election.”[8] At some level, this is true; however, Abraham’s obedience will establish a new community dedicated to the covenant of Yahweh. This event in Genesis 17 seems to be only the third meeting between Yahweh and Abraham explicitly described in the text. Therefore, Abraham had a very limited understanding about who Yahweh was and how humans should relate to him. His theological assumptions would have been elementary at best. Patai adds, “The religion of Abraham can be summed up as having consisted of nothing more than one creedal element (the belief in God), one ethical element (righteousness and justice), and one ritual element (circumcision).”[9] This analysis may be an over simplification of the Abrahamic covenant; however, it does include the most basic elements that could have formed an Abrahamic theology.

This new element of the covenant, ritual circumcision, was a recognizable sign. It was to be a practice that separated Abraham and his descendents from the surrounding cultures.[10] Yahweh was to be their God and this physical manifestation would be the sign of that covenant. The rite of circumcision was to be an emblem for covenantal community, which is why every male child was circumcised eight days after he was born. Likewise, every male servant was to be circumcised to show membership in the covenantal community.

It is important to note the inverse triangular shape of the speeches. The first speech revealed the grand scale (father of a multitude of nations) of the covenant; the second speech has contracted down to reveal a particular nation, identified by ritual circumcision.  Abraham’s involvement in the fulfillment of the covenant is continually being eliminated. His presumptive mistake with Hagar has given Yahweh cause to articulate, with unwavering clarity, Abraham’s role in the covenant: submission and obedience.

It is the prerogative of Yahweh that determines who will be included in the community. He has established his covenant with Abraham and his descendents. Abraham’s action within the covenant assumes a submissive stance. Paul House writes, “The promises of heir, land, nation and international blessing require faith on Abraham’s part. Abraham must find his security in God rather than in shifting circumstances. He must believe that to possess a relationship with God is the same thing as possessing the fulfillment of the Lord’s promises.” [11] Therefore, Abraham must rely upon Yahweh’s promise of an heir instead of pursuing his own heir through Sarah’s handmaiden.

The Fulfillment of the Covenant

While the first speech focused upon the grand scale of the covenant and the second on the covenantal sign of circumcision identifying a particular people, the third focuses upon Sarah, Abraham’s wife. This speech also begins with the words, And God said (Gen 17:15). Yahweh specifies the line of promise by renaming Sarah as he had previously done with Abraham.

Abraham’s name established him as a father of a multitude of nations instead of just an exalted father.[12] Sarai’s name change is linked to verse six, “I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you” (Gen 17:6, italics added). Since the name Sarah means “princess”, the reader could easily recognize that Yahweh’s covenantal promises would be fulfilled through her.

The first two divine speeches focused upon covenant obligations. This last speech proclaims the blessing of the covenant. At this point in the passage, it is very clear that Yahweh has promised to make Abraham the father of many nations. Yahweh has even promised that he would make an everlasting covenant with Abraham and his children. However, up to this point Yahweh has yet to specify how this will be achieved. Here in this text, Yahweh further narrows the outworking of his plan to bless Abraham with children through his wife Sarah. Bill Arnold notes, “The blessing itself is a son that God will provide for Sarah; moreover, she will become the mother of nations and kings of peoples (cf. v. 6) . . . The promise of multitudinous offspring given to Abraham is now extended to elderly Sarah, whose womb has been closed.”[13] Yahweh has successfully eliminated Abraham’s ability to supplant his plan by human intervention. The promised seed would only come through Sarah. The impossibility of this pregnancy was staggering. Only through divine intervention would she bear a son.

Yahweh’s speeches delineate an intentional stairstep of specific revelation. The first speech revealed the general promise of the covenant, namely, that God would make Abraham the father of many nations. The second speech did not determine which woman, Sarah or Hagar, would bear the son of promise, but rather explained how Abraham and his offspring were to faithfully obey the covenant. The last speech clearly identifies Sarah as the woman through whom the promise of Yahweh would be realized.

The reaction of Abraham is repugnant. His first encounter with Yahweh causes him to bow in homage and worship (Gen 17:3). The second time Abraham bows to God, his heart is filled with unbelief. However, Yahweh confirms his blessing in spite of Abraham’s doubt. Wenham notes, “The very word wyshq “and laughed,” spells “And Isaac.” So, in laughing at God’s promise, Abraham unwittingly confirms it.”[14] Abraham’s doubt stems not necessarily from his unbelief in the power of Yahweh, as much as it does from his love for Ishmael. Abraham speaks for the first time in this passage saying, “Oh that Ishmael might live before you!” (Gen 17:18). Superficially, this prayer seems appropriate because of his love for Ishmael; however, Abraham is clinging to his own intervention instead of Yahweh’s blessing.

Brueggemann writes, “We are now able to see the function of Ishmael as a threat to the promise. Abraham is no longer pressed to believe in an heir to be given, for he already has one, albeit in a devious way. Abraham is willing to stake his future on Ishmael. He does not fully understand the promise and its strange character. The laugh and the reference to Ishmael (vv. 17-18) are attempts to avoid the deep and unsettling claim God now makes on him.”[15]

Yahweh is unwilling to share his glory; therefore, he answers Abraham’s carnal request by saying, “No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him” (Gen 17:19). Sarah’s son, Isaac, and not Ishmael will experience the covenant described in verses 6-8. The nation of Israel will come through the line of Isaac and through his descendent, Jesus, all the nations of the earth will be blessed.

Yahweh, however, does hear the prayer of Abraham. He explains to Abraham that he will bless Ishmael. Sailhamer notes, “The ‘offspring’ of Isaac would form a great nation of twelve tribes (49:1-27), so the ‘offspring’ of Ishmael, under God’s blessing, would form a great nation of twelve [princes].”[16] Yahweh exposes the stark contrast between those who are in the covenant and those who are outside the covenant. From Isaac will come kings, but through Ishmael only princes. In verse 21, Yahweh reiterates that his promised covenant will be established with Isaac so that Abraham does not confuse Ishmael’s blessing with covenantal blessing. The remaining portion of the passage explains how Abraham faithfully obeys the word of Yahweh by circumcising himself, Ishmael, and every male in his household. The passage closes with the age related inclusio[17] begun in verse 1.

The covenantal promise comes at the behest of Yahweh. Abraham’s carnal intervention sought to exclude Yahweh’s involvement in the fulfillment of the promised heir; however, Yahweh infinitely values his glory and his plans cannot be rivaled by the ingenuity of human beings (Job 42:2). Sailhamer comments that “the descendants of Abraham who belong to this covenant will owe their existence to God alone . . . They will be ‘children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.’ (John 1:13)”.[18] The promises of God cannot be supplanted by human intervention. This passage declares the sovereignty of Yahweh and reveals the beginning of a covenantal community that would later produce the Christ, Abraham’s seed.

---

[1] James M. Hamilton, The Center of Biblical Theology: The Glory of God in Salvation Through Judgment (Seeking Publication), 22.

 

[2] All scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version.

[3] Gordon Wenham, Genesis 16-50, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 2 (Dallas: Word Books Publisher, 1994), 19.

[4] This information is referenced when Yahweh calls Moses to lead his people from the burning bush. Yahweh proclaims, “I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them” (Exodus 6:3).

[5] Walter Brueggemann, Genesis: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982), 153.

[6] Wenham, Genesis 16-50, 21.

[7] John H. Sailhamer, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 139.

[8] Raphael Patai, The Seed of Abraham: Jews and Arabs in Contact and Conflict (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1986), 17.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Peter J. Williams, s.v. “circumcision” Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. Edited by T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2003).

[11] Paul R. House, Old Testament Theology (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1998), 75.

[12] Wenham writes, “In the Old Testament [names] expressed a person’s character and destiny, at least as the parents perceived them; usually children [were] named at birth by their parents . . . Here, however, God [seems] to be dictation a name change in midlife. This makes the name Abraham … a divinely guaranteed statement about Abraham’s identity and future destiny. His very name guarantees that he will father many nations.” Gordon Wenham, Genesis 16-50 (Dallas: Word Biblical Publisher, 1994), 20-21.

[13] Bill T. Arnold, Genesis, New Cambridge Bible Commentary (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 173.

[14] Wenham, Genesis 16-50, 26.

[15] Brueggemann, Genesis, 156.

[16] Sailhamer, Genesis, 141.

[17] Sailhamer writes, “The ages of Abraham and Ishmael mark an inclusio to the narrative, which opened with the age of Abraham and, by implication, the age of Ishmael. The final word at the close restates Abraham’s obedient response to the covenant.” Ibid.

[18] Ibid., 138.

The Parable of the Lost Sheep: A Contextual Analysis

It is vital to examine the particular setting of the parable when seeking a accurate interpretation. Therefore, the following analysis will articulate the salvific timing of Christ’s arrival and ministry, the particular flow and context of the parable in the Matthean narrative, and the location of the parable within the discourse.

The Context of the Parable in the Redemptive Story

At the close of Malachi, the scripture is poised for the climatic arrival of God’s Messiah. Although the people of Israel are suffering through the terrors and heartbreak of the exile, the prophets had proclaimed a message of redemption and renewal. The words spoken by the prophet Ezekiel about God’s desire to gather his people as a shepherd gathers his flock would have been especially cogent in their minds.

The prophet Jeremiah prophesied the words of Yahweh saying, “”Behold, I am sending for many fishers, declares the LORD, and they shall catch them. . .”(Jer 16:16). This particular prophesy declared that God would eventually gather his people from the ends of the earth and re-plant them in the land he promised to the patriarchs. These words would have been especially meaningful to the people longing to see God’s Kingdom coming through his messiah. Jeremiah’s prophecy may have echoed in the minds of the disciples when Jesus called them saying, “Follow me, and I will make you become fishers of men” (Mark 1:17).

Jesus’ arrival and message inaugurated the promised renewal and gathering of the people of Israel. His message, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt 3:2) should have catapulted the minds of his hearers back to passages like Daniel 2:44, “…the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed. . . . It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever. . . .” Christ Jesus came so people might be gathered by the Good Shepherd (John 10:14) and the scriptures would be fulfilled saying, “Behold, I, I myself will search for my sheep and will seek them out” (Ezek 34:11).

The Context of the Parable in Matthew

The Gospel of Matthew contains five discourses given by Jesus. The book is arranged so the messages of Jesus help guide the narrative. In the first discourse, contained in chapters five through seven, Jesus explains a disciple’s function in the Kingdom of Heaven. The second discourse follows key signs and miracles that display the power of Christ and His divine authority. This discourse is given to the twelve disciples as he sends them out into the nation of Israel to preach the good news of the Kingdom.

Jesus’ popularity is growing and crowds gather around him to hear his teaching about the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus offers his third discourse, which is on parables, to the crowd in chapter thirteen. He stated to his disciples, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given” (Matt 13:11). He explains to his disciples that his teaching mirrors Isaiah’s ministry in that the people will hear but never understand, will see but never perceive. When Jesus finished his discourse on parables, he traveled to his hometown of Nazareth, where he was rejected.

From chapter thirteen to chapter seventeen, Matthew records seven times where those who should have had faith in Jesus demonstrate weak faith or, in some cases, a complete denial of faith. At the climax of what seems a cycle of disbelief in his authority and power, Jesus leads his disciples to the district of Caesarea Philippi and asks them to explain their understanding of who he is. Peter makes the great confession, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt 16:16).

After Peter’s confession, Jesus begins explaining to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem to suffer and die, but that he would be raised on the third day. Once again, the disciples, typified in Peter, demonstrate their fundamental misunderstanding of the Kingdom of Heaven. Peter attempts to rebuke Jesus by announcing that Jesus should never need to suffering as the Messiah. They are still looking for an earthly kingdom, so Jesus rebukes Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man” (Matt 16:23). Robert Stein writes, “The theology suggested by Peter’s rebuke stemmed not from God but from this world and the prince of this world (Matt 4:8-10). A crossless messiahship has its origin not in divine wisdom but in the flawed reasoning of this world.”[1]

Even after the transfiguration there appears to be a misunderstanding among his disciples about the kingship of Jesus and his purpose in ministry. At the close of chapter 17, the disciples engage in a discussion about the kingdoms of the earth. This conversation is stimulated by a tax collector’s question. Luke records that the disciples were arguing about who was the greatest and that Jesus knew what they were thinking (Luke 9:46-47). Mark adds that they had been on their way to Capernaum, and when they arrived, he asked them what they had been arguing about.  They remained silent (Mark 9:33-34). Matthew writes that directly after the discussion concerning the kingdoms of the earth, the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” (Matt 18:1). This question propels the disciples into the fourth discourse. Jesus begins explaining to the disciples how they are to have fellowship with God and with each other in the Kingdom of Heaven.

The Context of the Parablein the Discourse

The parable of the lost sheep serves as a concluding illustration for the particular instruction that Jesus is giving his disciples about their dependence upon God. The disciples had misunderstood the kingdom and what it meant to be great in the kingdom. All of the disciples had experienced the model of true greatness; however, they had missed the essence of Christ’s greatness. Jesus did not display his greatness by pretentious fecundity, but by modeling humility and servitude.

Jesus’ response does not answer their question directly; instead, he dismantles it by explaining that their question does not apply to disciples in the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus calls a young child and explains that the disciples must demonstrate utter dependence upon God in order to gain entrance into the Kingdom. His reply implies that their pride in asking the question demands investigation into whether they are eligible to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven at all! Craig Blomberg delineates, “Those who most clearly understand their helplessness and who respond in faith towards God are the greatest in the kingdom… But Jesus’ criterion for greatness is also his criterion for entrance into the kingdom.”[2]

Jesus is saying that only the humble will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven and all those who gain entrance into the Kingdom are the greatest. The essential characteristic of humility is in direct contrast to the pride of their question. Therefore, Jesus warns them about the temptations of sin and the horrible end awaiting those who, not only sin, but also tempt other disciples to sin.

Finally, Jesus asks them a question, “What do you think?” (Matt 18:12a). The faces of the disciples are probably downcast as they realize that they are not humble men and, therefore, are unable to even enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. At this point, Jesus’ parable gives them hope and assurance of the mercy of God. Though they are weak and prone to stray into pride, his careful shepherding of their souls will bring about their salvation.

---

[1] Robert H. Stein, Jesus the Messiah: A Survey of the Life of Christ (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1996), 162.

[2] Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew, The New American Commentary, vol. 22 (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 273.

The Parable of the Lost Sheep: A Historical Analysis

The imagery used by Jesus in the parable of the lost sheep carries historical significance and employs the use of Old Testament metaphorical language. The relevance of shepherding in the minds of those listening to Jesus is vitally important in ascertaining how the original hearers would have understood the parable and its intended meaning. Nomadic shepherding seems to be a staple occupation in the ancient Near East. Sheep and goats were two of the most important domesticated animals in Palestine. The metaphor of God acting as a shepherd to his people would have been clearly understood.

The Hebrew Scriptures describe the work of shepherding being practiced by Abel, “a keeper of sheep” in Genesis 4. This manner of work also can be traced through the lives of the patriarchs. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Jacob’s sons, Moses, and even King David are recorded as being shepherds.[1] The occupation of shepherding was common and widely practiced among the people of the ancient world.

There are few more aptly used descriptions of God in the Old Testament than that of a shepherd. God demonstrates his love and provision for his people by likening Himself to a caring shepherd. The patriarch, Jacob, begins the blessing of Joseph’s sons in Genesis 48 by saying, “The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, the God who has been my shepherd all my life long to this day…” He speaks of God being that one who has redeemed him and has directed his life. The Psalmist describes God as a shepherd in Psalm 23. Throughout the psalm, the Lord’s character is being likened to a shepherd who carefully directs his sheep to places of abundant nourishment and quiet rest. God was leading the nation of Israel toward health and blessing, but their cyclic rebellion and mistrust of God consequentially rerouted their destiny towards exile and suffering. Ezekiel 34 gives the most articulate description of how God will rescue his people and save them from destruction at the hands of evil, self-absorbed under-shepherds. “For thus says the Lord GOD: ‘Behold, I, I myself will search for my sheep and will seek them out. As a shepherd seeks out his flock when he is among his sheep that have been scattered, so will I seek out my sheep, and I will rescue them from all places they have been scattered on a day of clouds and thick darkness” (Ezek 34:11-12). The Lord promises to search for and rescue his people from where they have been scattered. He encourages them that he will restore them to their lush pastures and promised homeland. Both individual and national needs would be met; those lost and seemingly abandoned would be sought and found.[2] Similar depictions can be found elsewhere, both in the Old Testament (cf. Ps 119:176; Isa 40:10-11; 53:6; 60:4; Jer 23:1-4; 50:6) and in the New Testament (John 10:11-18; 1 Pet 2:25).[3]

When examining the historical background for Jesus’ use of the shepherding motif in Matthew 18, it is to understand the scriptural support for God’s shepherding of his people. This information will bring helpful clarity when performing correct exegesis of the parable’s meaning(s).

---

[1] Gerald L. Mattingly, s.v. “shepherd” Harper’s Bible Dictionary. Edited by Paul J. Achtemeier. (New York: Harper San Francisco, 1985).

[2] Kenneth L. Barker and John R. Kohlenberger III, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, vol. 1, Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), 1329.

[3] Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), 527.

The Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty Draft : Wealth Transfer Defined

This is the draft of the Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty currently out of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change working group dated September 15th.

The Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty Draft

To get an idea of the kinds of things being proposed, I provide it here with some excerpts below. Readers that wish to highlight some other excerpts should do so in comments.

Page 62:

33. Each Party’s national schedule shall include:
(a) A long-term national greenhouse gas emissions limitation or reduction pathway;
(b) A country-driven nationally appropriate mitigation strategy, differentiated in terms of the ambition, timing and scope of its mitigation commitments or actions, which could be, inter alia, project-based, sectoral or economy-wide.
(c) Each Party’s nationally appropriate mitigation strategy shall include:
(i) Except for the least developed countries and small island developing States,
quantified emissions limitation or reduction commitments for 2020, consistent
with its long-term national greenhouse gas emissions limitations or reduction
pathway, subject to regular review; and
(ii) Measurable, reportable and verifiable mitigation policies and measures to meet its quantified emissions limitation or reduction commitments for 2020, as appropriate, and to support its national greenhouse gas emissions limitations or reduction pathway, subject to regular review.
34. All countries prepare low emission development strategies. Note that further paragraphs would be required to describe in more detail their function and relationship to the national schedules described above and a potential facilitative/matching platform.
35. All Parties shall develop and regularly update and submit information relating to the implementation of their nationally appropriate mitigation strategies. Such information shall be reviewed and verified according to agreed rules and guidelines.
36. All Parties, except for the least developed countries and small island developing States, shall develop and regularly update and submit a national inventory of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of all gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol.
37. National inventories shall be:
(a) Undertaken in accordance with the latest agreed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; and
(b) Submitted, reviewed and verified according to agreed frequencies, rules and guidelines.

===

Page 122, Item 17 is quite troubling.

15. [Developed country Parties [shall][should] provide support to developing country Parties, particularly those specified in Articles 4.8 and 4.9 of the Convention, in order to allow developing country Parties to address issues related to social and environmental development, economic diversification, risk assessment, modelling and insurance to prevent the adverse effects of the spillover effects.] Alternative to paragraph 15:
[In the implementation of paragraphs 11 (c)11 and 11 (d)12 above (159.1 and 159.2 in FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.1) , through the provision of financial resources, including for access, development and transfer of technology, at agreed full incremental costs in accordance with Article 4.3 of the Convention;
Recognizing that there are ways and means to reduce or avoid such impacts through careful and informed selection of policies and measures, to evaluate the effectiveness of existing tools, and to consider new ones, in order to assist developing country Parties in addressing these impacts.]
16. [Adverse economic and social consequences of response measures [shall][should] be addressed by proper economic, social and environmental actions, including promoting and supporting economic diversification and the development and dissemination of win-win technologies in the affected countries, paying particular attention to the needs and concerns of the poorest and most vulnerable developing country Parties.]
Alternative to paragraph 16:
[Adverse economic and social consequences of response measures shall be addressed by various means, including but not limited to promoting, supporting and enabling economic diversification, funding, insurance and the development, transfer and dissemination of win-win technologies in the affected countries, such as cleaner fossil fuel technologies, gas flaring reduction, and carbon capture and storage technologies.]
17. [[Developed [and developing] countries] [Developed and developing country Parties] [All Parties] [shall] [should]:]
(a) Compensate for damage to the LDCs’ economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees;
(b) Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated for environmental, social and economic losses arising from the implementation of response measures.