THE LOVE SICKNESS UNTO DEATH: AN ANALYSIS OF DEATH (twm) IN SONG OF SONGS 8:6c WITH REGUARD TO THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST BACKROUND IN RELATION TO ITS CANN

From general canonical standpoint the Song of Songs is a shocking book, however from a literary standpoint within the book the phrase “love is as strong as death” כִּי־עַזָּ֤ה כַמָּ֙וֶת֙ אַהֲבָ֔ה (Sol 8:6 WTT) is shocking in and of itself. There are several reasons for this shock. First, the word “love” (bha) occurs 11x in the song and this is the first and only time it is ever compared to “death” (twm). In fact, this is the only time in the Hebrew Bible[1] where love compared to death! However, is this the full extent of the shocking dimension about this phrase? Some scholars have suggested that this phrase carries with it a veiled reference to the Ugaritic myth about Anat and Baal.[2] Is this true?

This study will suggest that “death” is not to be understood with reference to the ANE background, rather it should be understood in terms of its larger canonical expression. Specifically, “death” be understood as a consequence of living apart from the covenant. Death in this sense is understood as something akin to “the way to death” (tw#m*-yk@r=d^)[3] as we see in parallel literary forms within the Canon. This means that the “strength of death” (SOS 8:6c) is the power of an alternative way of life outside of covenant life. Death in this sense is separation from one's true covenant partner,[4] a vulnerability to the power of evil,[5] as well as exile from the land.[6] Reasons for this interpretation will become clear in the course of this paper.

The purpose of the following paper is to explore the meaning of the phrase “love is as strong as death” in relation to its possible Ancient near East[7] background. In order to test this accurately, we must first examine the proposed ANE background in terms of its historical placement, genre function, and content. This will enable us to establish commonalities as well as “points of opposition.”[8] Then we must conduct a word study on the Hebrew noun “death.”

The word study will keep in mind the following criteria. First, what can this word possibly mean within the HB. Second, how can this word be used to express X? In other words, how is this word used in relation to metaphorical expression? How can this word be collated with other terms? Is it possible to use this term as personification? With regard to personification, we must ask whether the personification is simply the literary embodiment of an abstract idea or whether it's a possible reference to ANE mythological background. In addition, we must look for the contextual indications that alert the reader to the fact that personification is indeed at work within the text. This will enable us to develop clear criteria for when personification does occur in every clear instance, and then we will be able to more precisely evaluate the text in question.

ANAT AND MOT: AN ANAYLYIS OF THE ANE BACKROUND ANAT AND MOT

The proposed ANE background for SOS 8:6c occurs in the Ugaritic text Baal and Mot. There is some disagreement about the mythological function of the text. Some scholars maintain that the narrative is an attempt to explain the seasonal patterns of summer and spring.[9] Meaning, the story depicts Mot, the god of death, as somebody who temporarily defeats Baal, the god of fertility. During this time of temporary defeat, Mot puts the sun god under orders to beat down on the earth. In this way, the myth could be talking about the seasonal disruption of summer. However, other scholars maintain that this is a story about a special instance of prolonged seasonal disruption (i.e. possibly a seven-year drought), which could be a historical reference to the drought that Moses describes in Gen 46:25.[10]

The purpose of our study, the focus has been drawn to the smaller conflict within the story between Anat and Mot, specifically CTA 6. In the broad context of this narrative Baal has been summoned to “come down throat of divine Mot.”[11] Baal avoids submitting himself to this summons by producing a male heir in his likeness and offering him as a substitute in his place. The text states, “he [Baal] love a heifer in the pastures… he did lie with her seven and 70 times, she allowed him to mount her 8 and 80 times; and she conceived and gave birth to a boy.”[12] It is with this heir that Baal convinces Mot that he is indeed dead. This plan is so successful that he has also deceived the rest of the gods of this fact.

Our specific context begins with Ahat, Baal’s sister mourning over this apparent fact. As she is moyrning she poses this question, “What will become of the people of Dagon’s son? What of his multitudes?”[13] In other words, now that Baal is dead there is a vacancy of power, a disruption of fertility upon the earth. After this problem is brought to the attention of El, there is some debate and deliberation about who will take his place. After Anat very quickly realizes that this divine deliberation is going nowhere quick, she decides to take up search for Baal. She soon realizes that she is unable to find him. So she decides to confront Mot himself. Anat demands, “do you, Mot, give up my brother?”[14] Eventually, Anat gets so angry with Mot she seizes “divine Mot, with a sword she split him”[15] We learn eventually that Baal is indeed still alive. in the last portion of the story we see Baal and Mot locked in combat together. The text states, “Mot was strong. Baal was strong. They fought like greyhounds; Mot fell down, Baal fell down on top of him.” At this point, Shaphesh, the sun god, intercedes in order to bring an end to the unending struggle. He says, “Hear, I beseech you, O divine Mot. How can you fight with mightiest Baal?”[16] The text ends with Mot affirming the place and supremacy of Baal within the scope of the pantheon.
Before we make an assessment about the relevance of this story for understanding SOS 8:6c, we must do a careful word study. This will enable us to make a comparison and contrast between these two distinctive bodies of literature.

DEATH (twm): A WORD STUDY OF THE HEBREW NOUN

The noun “death” (twm) occurs 160x in the HB. In terms of distribution, Jon has the greatest concentration of occurrences (3x) whereas Prov as the second greatest concentration (19x). The Psalms has the largest number of occurrences in terms of sheer quantity (22x). Exodus contains the least amount in terms of distribution (1x), even though the books of Est, Songs, Lam, and Hab also only contain a single occurrence.

The word has five different definitions. First, it can mean simply, “death, dying.”[17] This simply has to do with the termination of life. Second, it can mean. “Epidemic, especially the plague.” This has to do with deadly conditions within a specific environment. Third, it can be “personified as the god of death.” Fourth, it can mean, “the realm of the dead.” This has to do with the underworld or the grave. Fifth, death can be a place for a destination. This has to do with the consequences of breaking the covenant.

Death as the Termination of Life

The most basic definition of “death” (twm) is “death, dying.” This signifies the termination of life. An example of this use can be heard in the mouth of Hagar who says after wandering in the wilderness, “let me not look on the death of the child,” (Gen 21:16). Later on, we see the expression “the death of Abraham” (Gen 25:11, 26:18) signaling the termination of the life of Abraham. Still later on, we see the same use in the mouth of the Isaac who says, “Bring venison and make morsels for me so that I may eat it and bless you before the Lord and before my death,” (Gen 27:10, translation my own). This same word can be used of animals that have also ceased to live. Moses states, whoever touches them [animals] when they are dead shall be unclean until evening, (Ex 10:17). There are also a number of other examples of this use.[18]

Death as epidemic

Death can be used to designate a plague of that is affecting a particular people group or geographic plane. Pharaoh states, “now therefore forgive my sin, please, only this once, and plead with the Lord your God only to remove this death from me,” (Ex 10:17, ESV).[19]

Death as ceremonial uncleanliness

If someone is to come in contact with a corpse, then this will render them into a state of ceremonial uncleanliness. This is true of both certain types of animals as well as humans. Moses states, “These are unclean to you among all that swarm. Whoever touches them when they are dead shall be unclean until evening,” (Lev 11:31, ESV).[20]

Death as Penalty of Law

Death can be the consequence of a crime committed under the law. Moses states, “And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he's put to death,” (Dt 21:22, ESV). Jeremiah mentions a similar idea to this, which he calls it “the sentence of death, (26:11, 16).

Death as a Vacancy in Leadership

The death of a person can be a sign of a vacancy in leadership. The text will say something like, “After the death of x,” which simply means there is a need for a new leader.[21] Moses himself understands the importance of a present living leader. He says to Israel, “for I know how rebellious and stubborn you are. Behold, even today while I am yet alive with you, you have been rebellious against the Lord, how much more after my death!” (Dt 31:27, ESV).[22]

Death as Covenant Punishment

Death is a covenant punishment. This means it is the consequences for breaking the covenant. Moses states, “see, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil,” (Dt 30:15, ESV). Again he states, “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I said before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life that you and your offspring may live,” (Dt 30:19, ESV). This way of speaking about death becomes a prominent theme in the wisdom literature.[23]

Death as the Place of the Dead

Death is the place where the dead reside. This can be in terms of the physical location of inhumation or perhaps the metaphysical round of deceased persons. Concerning the former David states, “for in death there is no remembrance of you; and sheol who will give you praise?” (Ps 6:5, ESV concerning the latter Job states, “have the gates of death and revealed to you, or have you seen the gates of the darkness?” (Jb 38:17).[24]

Death as the Language of Expression

Death can be used to express a wide variety of conditions. These conditions can be expressed in the form of oath, metaphor, simile, collocation, or personification.

Metaphors for Death

There are several metaphors for death. Most of these metaphors for expressions occur within the wisdom literature and the poetic sections of the Bible. There is “The snares of death,”[25] which basically means a threatening for menacing obstacle. There is a reference to “The dust of death,” in Ps 22:15, which is a reference to the grave. There is, of course, “The gates of death,”[26] which is a reference to the entrance of the underworld as in the metaphysical abode for the death. Of course, there is a single reference to “Chambers of death,” (Pr 7:27), which is the place or destination of apostasy or living outside of the covenant. This is also referred to as “The way to death.”[27] There is also a single reference to “Sleep of death,” (Ps 13:30) which signifies the event of death itself. There is also several ways to refer to the impending threat of death: “The Chords of death,” (Ps 18:4), “The bitterness of death,” (1 Sam 15:32), “The waves of death,” 2 Sam 22:5. Finally, one can also speak of a “Deathly panic,” (1 Sam 5:11).

Similes for Death

There are a few occasions where death is likened to someplace or quality Inn in person. The author of lamentations talked says that “the House is like death,” (1:20). Habakkuk compares greed to death in the manner that it never has enough, (2:5). The author of Ecclesiastes says that death is better than being born, (7:1). He also says an adulterous woman is "More bitter than death" (Eccl 7:26). Jonah tells God that “death is better than life,” (Jo 4:3, 8).

Collocations with Death

There are also collocations or words that occur in relation to the word death. In addition to all the word pairs that have hardly been pointed out in the discussion concerning metaphor and simile, there are several collocations worth pointing out. There is “strangling and death,” (Jb 7:15). There is also a fairly common “life and death.”[28] There is also reference to “Arrows and death,” (Pr 26:18). Finally, there is a single collocation of love and death (SOS 8:6).

The Personification of Death

Death can be personified as the god of death. Job says, “Abaddon and death say. ‘We have heard a rumor of it with our ears,’” (28:22, ESV). It is important to note here that death is pictured as someone who can say something. The prophet Isaiah states that God will “Swallow death forever,” (25:8). Here that his personified as an enemy which can be conquered by God himself. He also accuses the people of making “a covenant with death” (28:15, 18). Here that his personified as a covenant partner. Later on, he states that “death does not praise you [Yahweh],” (38: this 18). Here it is personified as somebody who refuses to praise God. Jeremiah states, “death has come into our windows; it has entered our palaces,” (9:21). Notice here death is the subject of the verbal action. Later on, he states that “men meet death by pestilence,” (18:21). Here then are able to encounter death as if it were a personal being. Finally, the prophet Hosea cries out, “shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol? Shall I redeem them from Death? Oh Death, where are your plagues? Oh Sheol, where is your sting?” (13:14, ESV). Here death is directly addressed as if he were a real person.

Now that we have conducted a word study on death, we are able to make note of several important factors. First, the word death has the wide range of meaning. It can mean the termination of life. It can mean epidemic. It can also signify a vacancy in leadership. Death has the power to render somebody ceremonially unclean. Death can be a punishment for crime. Death can be the result of breaking a covenant. We also saw that death can be used express many different facets of human emotion by means of metaphor, simile, collocation, and personification. With regard to collocation, we saw that it was usually paired with paired with the word for life and only once with the word for love. With regard to personification, we saw that there was usually a specific contextual indicator that alerted the reader to the fact that personification was being used. The main mechanism for personification was the fact that death was the subject of the firm of action for perhaps the recipient of personal action. So we can conclude on the basis of our word study that it is possible that death may be personified in SOS 8:6c, but we will need further contextual evidence to verify this interpretation. We now turn to the immediate context of SOS 8:6c.

HOW STRONG IS LOVE: A LITERARY-SYNTACTICAL ANALYSIS OF 8:6c

There are several questions that need to be addressed: 1) what genre is at work here; 2) what is the specific literary type or form; 3) how does SOS 8:6c function within the literary form and within 8:6 in particular; 4) how doesn't contribute to a biblical understanding of love?

First, it must be noted that 8:6c is placed within the broad context of 8:4-- 14. The vote in its entirety is found within the body of the writings, which is wisdom literature or life within the land. The immediate context is 8:4 – 14. This can be classified as Didactic poetic lecture. In this regard, the form is similar to what can be found in Proverbs 1 -- 9, which is a series of poetic lectures exhorting “my son” to learn and think as one who possesses the skill of “leadership” תַּחְבֻּל֥וֹת (Pro 1:5 WTT). The book of Proverbs terminated with a poetic depiction of who a potential leader in Israel should marry; namely “a wife of valor” אשֶׁת־חַ֭יִל (Pro 31:10 WTT). It is worth mentioning that this woman is described as somebody who “opens her mouth in wisdom and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue,” (31:26, NASB). Now, here within 8:4 -- 14, we see “a life of valor” for filling this very function. She is opening her mouth in wisdom concerning things that she has learned.

Second, it must be noted that 8:6c occurs within the immediate context of an imperative. The peasant princess exhorts her beloved to “place me” שִׂימֵ֙נִי (Sol 8:6 WTT)[29] as if she were “a seal” כחוֹתָ֜ם (Sol 8:6 WTT).

But now how does 8:6c relate to this imperative? In other words, how does yk! function within this context? It can function 10 ways: 1) causal; 2) temporal; 3) conditional; 4) adversative; 5) concessive; 6) assertive; 7) result; 8) nominalizing; 9) within a question; 10) recitative. We can rule out numbers 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10 on the basis of specific syntactic features that are not at work here. However, that still leaves 2, 5, and 6 for our consideration. If we were to translate it as causal, then we could render the verse as “because love is as strong as death.” If we would translate it as assertive, then “indeed love is as strong as death.” If we were to translate it as concessive, then we would translate it “as in spite of love [being] as strong as death.” Although all three of these possibilities seem plausible, I tend to prefer the causal understanding of the conjunction because the peasant princess is trying to teach us something about love through a persuasive argument. Yes, although it is true that in some sense she is trying “to assert the certainty of what follows,”[30] I believe it makes more sense to say that she is giving the ground of reasoning for her imperative.

So what does it mean to say “love is as strong as death”? First, it must be noted that the word “love” occurs 11x SOS. First, it occurs with reference to her beloved as proclaiming his love as a “banner” (lgd). Second, the peasant princess talks about being “sick with love” כִּי־חוֹלַ֥ת אַהֲבָ֖ה (Sol 2:5 WTT). This is a reference to wanting to be in covenant of union with her beloved.[31] Third, several times throughout this Song and peasant princess exhorts the daughters of Jerusalem to not arouse or awaken “love” (bha) until it is time.[32] Fourth, Solomon’s portable Shag pad is described as being “inlaid with love,” (3:10). Fifth, Solomon himself calls the peasant princess “love” (7:6).

So what does love me and our present context? I don't think it makes any sense to say that love where death is a reference to the ANE mythological context because there are none of the contextual indicators that we clearly saw in other portions of the HB. Love or death are not acting as subjects which can perform verbal actions nor are they being addressed as they were personal being used to be encountered. However, what does this statement specifically mean within our context? Is love being talked about in an abstract sense or in a personal concrete sense? I prefer to say that love is being talked about in abstract with immediate and present application. To exclude one from the other is to tear away at the unity of the coherency and universal application of truth in general. In addition, I would suggest that what is meant by this comparison is that she is saying that love is a choice between life and death. You see, the wisdom teacher in Proverbs lays out a choice for his students. They can either choose “fear of the Lord” (1:7, 29) or “dread of evil” (1:33). These two decisions are embodied as two different women: Lady wisdom (1:20) and the strange woman (2:16). If the students choose the former, then the results will be dwelling in safety (1:33) and life within the land (2:22). Now in this song the woman is forced with a choice between Solomon and her true love. Solomon is offering her safety and security supposedly whereas for true love offers her true safety and true security. It is interesting to note that while she is within harem, she continues to suffer from being “sick with love,” which is an indication that harem life for the most part it's not going to satisfy her deepest longing to live in genuine covenant union with her true love. Ultimately, living in a harem will result in a lack of genuine safety and exile from the promised land. It is on this basis that I would suggest that “death” should be understood here in terms of “the way to death”[33] or “the chamber of death” (7:27) as we saw in the book of Proverbs.[34]

CONCLUSION

We begin study with the question: what is so shocking about love and death? The main purpose of this study was to investigate the so-called possibility of the ANE background for SOS 8:6c. A careful comparative analysis of the Ugaritic mythological parallel in relation to the possible range of meaning of the word “death” showed us that, although it was possible to establish parallels even within the HB, this certainly was not the case in SOS 8:6c. Rather, it should be read in light of its literary formal function as a didactic poetic lecture, which is exhorting the reader to understand the nature of love as a choice between death and life. This is significant in light of precedent research that has tended to evaluate this phrase almost exclusively in relation to its so-called ANE background. This basically plays out as either an affirmation for denial of the relevance. What most scholars failed to do is fail to draw out its significance. If I am incorrect in my assessment regarding the ANE, then what would be significance of this reference? How can a story that concerns itself with the problem of fertility in the land have any meaningful significance on song about covenant love? Could we say that the Bible is challenging the ANE understanding about seasonal pattern? What would be the effect upon Hebrew audience? However, if my assessment is correct, then we are in a position to talk about love without regard to so-called Cannanite background material. We can free up the text to speech in its own distinctive terms. In addition, is my hope that I have provided in the rough outline a clear criterion to evaluate the presence or absence of genuine mythological reference.

---

[1] From here on out HB.

[2] Othmar Keel, The Song of Songs: A Continental Commentary, trans. Frederick J. Gaiser, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 274; Tremper Longman III, Song of Songs, (Grand Rapids: William B. Erdmans Publishing Company, 2001), 210; Duane Garrett, Song of Songs, WBC, (Nashville ); note that not all scholars agree that they should be read as a reference to ANE mythology see Richard S. Hess, Song of Songs, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 239; note that Robert Gordis in his commentary, The Song of Songs and Lamentations, (New York: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1974), 99, does not even acknowledge interleaved difficulty here.

[3] Pr 14:12; 16:25

[4] SOS 2:5, 7; 3:5; 5:8; 8:4, 6.

[5] SOS 2:4.

[6] The concept of exile should be understood in contrast with life in the land, which involves not only geographic location but public involvement with commerce and legal decisions; see Proverbs 1: 20 -- 21.

[7] From here on out ANE.

[8] Arvid S. Kapelrud, The Ras Shamra Discoveries and the Old Testament, trans., G. W. Anderson, (Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1963), 30.

[9] J. C. L. Gibson, Cannanite Myths and Legends, (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1978), 18.

[10] J. C. L. Gibson, Cannanite Myths and Legends, 18.

[11] J. C. L. Gibson, Cannanite Myths and Legends, 68.

[12] J. C. L. Gibson, Cannanite Myths and Legends, 72.

[13] J. C. L. Gibson, Cannanite Myths and Legends, 74.

[14] J. C. L. Gibson, Cannanite Myths and Legends, 76.

[15] J. C. L. Gibson, Cannanite Myths and Legends, 77.

[16] J. C. L. Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 80.

[17] HELOT, Bibleworks 8.

[18] Gen 27:2; 50:16; Lev 11:32; 16:1; Num 16:29; 23:10; 35:25, 28, 32; Deut 31:27, 29; Jud 13:7; Ruth 1:17; 2:11; 1 Sam 20:3, 31; 2 Sam 6:23; 1 Chr 22:5; Est 2:7; Ps 33:19; 49:17; 53:13 68:20; 73:4; 70:50; 89:48; 116:15; Pro 11:7; Eccl 3:19; 7:1; Jer 18:21, 23; 52:11, 34; Ez 18:23, 32; 31:14; 33:11;

[19] see also Jer 43:11.

[20] For a comprehensive study on the relationship between death and uncleanliness see Emanuel Feldman, Biblical and Post- Biblical Defilement and Mourning: Law as Theology, (New York: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1977).

[21] See Josh 1:1, Jdg 1:1; 2 Sam 1:1; 2 Ki 1:1; 14:17; 15:5; 1 Chr 2:24; 2 Chr 22:4; 24:17; 26:21.

[22] See also Dt 31:29.

[23] Jb 3:21; Ps 33:19; Pr 2:18; 5:5; 7:27; 8:36; 10:2; 11:4, 19; 12:28; 13:14; 14:12, 27; 16:25; 18:21; 21:6; 24:11; Jer 21:8.

[24] See also: Ps 9:13.

[25] See: 2 Sam 22:6; Ps 18:5; 116:3; Pr 13:14; 14:27; 21:6.

[26] See: Jb 38:17; Ps 9:13; 107: 18.

[27] See: Pr 14:12; 16:25.

[28] See: Dt 30:15; 2 Sam 1:23; 15:21.

[29] Qal. Imperfect, 2ms, Biconsonantal. -to place, to put. 1cs pronominal suffix.

[30] Ronald J. Williams, Williams Hebrew Syntax: Third Edition, rev. By John C. Beckman, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007), 158.

[31] See also: 5:8.

[32] 2:7; 3:5; 8:4.

[33] See: Pr 14:12; 16:25

[34] see also: Dt 30:15, 19; Jb 3:21; Ps 33:19; Pr 2:18; 5:5; 7:27; 8:36; 10:2; 11:4, 19; 12:28; 13:14; 14:12, 27; 16:25; 18:21; 21:6; 24:11; Jer 21:8.

KNOCK, KNOCK, KNOCKING ON SHEOL’S DOOR: A COMPARATIVE AND CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF JONAH 2:1 AND THE DESCENT OF INNANA AND ISHTAR

The text in Jonah 2:1 states that John was in the midst of the fish for three days and three nights.” This expression is very rare in the Hebrew Bible. It only occurs twice.[1]Why does that say three days and three nights? Does this span of time simply refer to an amount of time that would have been “a far longer period than Jonah might have expected to survive”[2] or is it possible that this is a reference to the Sumerian/Akkadian myth “the descent of Innanna”? The purpose of this paper is to explore the background of the Sumerian and apply a basic comparative analysis with Jonah Chapter 2 in order to discern the possible relevance that this myth may have on the text of Jonah. This paper will be divided into three parts. Part one will focus on “the descent of Innamna.” We will first set the stage for the text by providing a brief historical and literary analysis of the text and then we will proceed to provide a brief summary of the narrative. Part two will then examine its Akkadian counterpart “the descent of Ishtar.” This will be done in order to discern the differences and similarities between each version. Part three will first examine the literary historical context of Jonah Chapter 2 and then we'll sometimes the narrative content of Jonah Chapter 2. We will then he positioned to analyze both the parallels as well as contrasts in order to give equally to both for it is within “The balance between comparison and contrast, for their combination in the appropriate proportions, which first provides the overall context for the biblical text.”[3]

THE DESCENT OF INNANNA

The descent of Innanna was originally composed somewhere between 2000 and 1500 B.C.[4] The text is Sumerian in origin but was also later adapted and transmitted by the Akkadians somewhere around 1000 B.C.[5] In fact, almost all Sumerian literature has been preserved by way of Akkadian preservation and transmission of the text. Nicholas Osler states, “Almost all the Sumerian literary texts that had been found were copied, often by schoolboys come in the first half of the second millennium, after the death of Sumerian as a living language.”[6] It is important to for our context that Sumerian gave rise to Akkadian as the lingua franca from 2000 B.C. to 600 B.C.[7] in case of our study, this means that if it's text as it all being read by the author of Jonah, it is in all likelihood being received in Akkadian. The text itself, whether it be in the Akkadian or Sumerian form, seems to be a religious text that conveys theological teaching about the nature of the underworld and its relationship to the goddess of love (i.e. Innanna/Ishtar).

As a narrative the Sumerian text can be broken up into four parts. First, Innanna’s preparation to go to the underworld. Second, her entrance into the underworld and her (unexpected?) death. Third, Ninshubur, her messenger, proceeds to find a goddess or gods that will help bring back Innana from the dead. Finally, Innana is brought back to life and then proceeds to go around visiting all the people that help her comeback from the dead.

Part one basically describes the scene where Innanna is preparing to go to the underworld “for some unknown reason.”[8] The text says simply, “my lady abandoned Heaven, abandoned earth, to the netherworld she descended, Innana abandoned Heaven, abandon the earth, to the netherworld she descended.”[9] In his portion of the story she does three things. First, the text mentions that she “abandons” seven different city in her purse in of the underworld. Second, the text then says that she “arrayed herself in seven ordinances.”[10] This refers to the fact that she is preparing herself with special clothing for her descent. The text describes special adornments for every part of her body (i.e. her head, hair, hand, neck, breast, her body, her eyes). Third, cheat and gives a special commission or instructions to her messenger Ninshubar. She basically tells Ninshubar what to do in the event that she does not return from the underworld. She is to mourn for her in her absence and beseech the gods on her behalf. She says, “when I shall have come to the netherworld, fill Heaven with complaints for me, in the assembly shrine cry out for me, in the house of the gods rush about for me, scratch thy eyes for me.”[11] She specifies several gods that Ninshubar must go to: Enil, Ur, Nanna, Eridu, and Enki.

Part two basically describes her entry into the underworld. In this section we learn that for some reason or another Innana lies the gatekeeper of the underworld in order to gain entry. She states, “my elder sister Erechkigal, because her husband, the Lord Gugalanna, had been killed, to witness his funeral rites.”[12] At this point, Neti, the gatekeeper of the underworld, goes to Erechkigal and beseeches her on behalf of Innanna. In his speech to Erechkigal he describes the adornments, which she has put on for the occasion. Erechkigal then gives Netti the order to bring Innana through “the seven gates of the netherworld.”[13] As Netti brings her through each of the gates, he gives her an order to remove one specific item of her adornments. When asked why she must remove her adornments, he replies, “be silent, Innanna, the ordinances of the netherworld are perfect, O Innanna do not question the rights of the netherworld.”[14] Along the way she is ordered to remove: her crown, her measuring rod, her small lapis lazuli stones around her neck, his sparkling stones of her breast, the gold ring of her hand, her breastplate, and the garment of her body. Once she finally gained entrance into the netherworld she is judged by the Annunnaki who then proceed to “fasten their eyes upon her, the eyes of death.”[15]

The third part of the story then describes what Ninshubar does in response to the absence of Innanna. The text says, “After three days and three nights had passed, her messenger Ninshubar... fills the Heaven with complaints for her, cried out for her in the assembly shrine, rushed about four in the house of the gods, scratched his eyes for her.”[16] At this point, he begins to go around to all the gods that he had been instructed to beseech in her behalf. As it turns out all of the gods refuse to come to Inannana’s aide except for Eniki who fashions a creature who will bring back Inanna to life.

The last part of the story is incomplete. It begins to tell a story about how Inanna goes around visiting the gods who refused to help her when she was dead. Of course, she is accompanied by two teams from the underworld who are more than willing to carry out revenge for her. It is difficult to discern the function of this text, especially since we are missing some pieces from this puzzle.

THE DESCENT OF ISHTAR

The Akkadian version is considerably shorter. This version seems to lack an elaborate preparation for going into the underworld. It also seems to lack the revenge plot that we saw happening at the end of the Sumerian account. Nevertheless, the Akkadian narrative can be broken up into three parts.

Part one describes the descent of Ishtar into the underworld as well as her forceful access into the underworld through a series of threats, rather than a craftily formed a lie like we saw in the Sumerian account. Ishtar states, “if thou openest not the gate so that I cannot enter, I will smash the door, I will shatter the bolt, I will smash the doorpost, I will move the doors, I will raise up the dead, eating the living, so that the dead will outnumber the living!”[17] After gaining entrance into the underworld, she is then forced to remove all of her clothes as she passes through the seven gates of the underworld.

Part two describes how she is put to death, which results in a subsequent infertility among the living. The text states, “After Lady Ishtar [had descended to the land of no return], the bull springs not upon the cow, [the ass impregnates not the Jenny], in the street, [the man in impregnates not] the maiden.”[18]

Part three describes how she is brought back to life, which in this case is not done by a messenger who has been previously commissioned but rather Pappsukal who is described as a “vizor of the great Gods.”[19] In this case, he does not beseech the gods on the basis that Ishtar has been killed as we saw in the Summerian account, rather he brings forward the problem of infertility that has resulted from her death. She is then brought back to life and consequently all of her close a return to her as she leaves seven gates of death.

It would seem that in the Akkadian account there is a much clearer emphasis on fertility, whereas the Sumerian account placed a greater emphasis on the place of the gods. Inanna’s place was in the "great above" and not in the "great below." She also seems much more crafty and subtle about the way she gets into the underworld, where as in the Akkadian account we have a very forceful Ishtar threatening her way into the underworld.

JONAH AND THE GREAT FISH

The book of Jonah is extremely difficult to tie down historically. It is possible that the book was written by Jonah himself as early as 780 B.C (2 Ki 14:25). Certainly was written no later than 200 B.C. whereby it was already known as a book and viewed as canonical. However, some authors propose that it was possibly written somewhere “between the sixth century B.C. and the mid-fourth.”[20]

When it comes to taking the book of Jonah, one needs to consider several kinds of evidence. First, there is the evidence of authorship. There is no explicit evidence that Jonah is indeed the author of the book of Jonah. If it is indeed the case that he not the author, then one need not place the authorship during his lifetime.

Second, there is the evidence taken from the descriptive statements about Nineveh. Is Nineveh being accurately described from the standpoint of an author who is contemporaneous with the existence of Nineveh? Is the author exaggerating when he describes Nineveh as "the great city" (Jonah 3:3)? When the author refers to "the King of Nineveh" does he unveil his historical ignorance of how one actually refers to the King (i.e. contra the annuls of the kings of Assyria)? If the evidence does not point in this direction, then does one have to be affirrm a book that predates the fall of Nineveh (i.e. before 612 B.C.)? Leslie C. Allen certainly reads the evidence this way.[21]

Third, there is a strange occurrence of that King declaring a fast that extended to even the animals and livestock (3:7). Allen maintains there is evidence points to the fact the author and imposing Persian custom onto the Akkadians. In support of this position, Alan draws attention to Ezra 7:14, Daniel 6:17, and Herodotus.

Fourth, there is the apparent use of Jeremiah 18 and Joel 2 found in Jonah Chapter 4.

Finally, there is the linguistic evidence. There is the presence of several so-called Aramaism such as, “think” (יתְעַשֵּׁ֧ת (Jon 1:6), “rage” (מזַּעְפּֽוֹ (Jon 1:15) and, “decree” (מִטַּ֧עַם (Jon 3:7) This type of evidence can be read in either as late Aramaic intrusions or possibly “pure Canaanitisms or common northwest Semitic.”[22] There is also linguistic evidence which that attests to late Biblical Hebrew such as “ship” “hurl” “be quite” and
“to appoint.”

For the purposes of this paper, we will not investigate and weigh all of this evidence. We are simply asking the question: is it possible that the author of Jonah would have had access to the Akkadian version of the descent of Ishtar? In my assessment, it seems that it is possible but not very likely.
It is possible that Jonah himself could have become aware of the expression “three days and three nights” via his visit to Nineveh, but most likely by means of hearing the myth but not an actual reading of the text itself. For as a Semitic speaker would have been some degree of mutual intelligibility[23] with an Akkadian speaker, however reading an Akkadian would have required special and extensive schooling.[24]

However, it seems unlikely that the reference to “three days and three nights” is a reference to the descent of Ishtar. Even though it is very likely that the prophets were to some degree aware of the theological narratives outside stricture and even occasionally made reference to these narratives within Scripture, it does not seem likely in this case for several reasons. First, the book of Jonah and the descent of Ishtar are due in two very different things. Ishtar in some sense aims at providing a theological/mystical explanation for seasonal pattern change whereas Jonah aims at providing a theological understanding about God's relationship to both Jews and Gentiles. Second, although there are some loose parallels between the story of Jonah and the story of Ishtar, there does not seem to be enough to substantiate a genuine connection between the two. It seems to me that if the author wanted to make reference to Ishtar, then he would have done so with greater forcefulness and clarity. However, this procedure would assume that the author of Jonah (perhaps Jonah himself) would be directing the text as an Akkadian audience. It does not seem to make a lot of sense for the author to be making use of secular theological narratives for a Jewish audience. Third, although the phrase is rare within Scripture, there is one other occurrence within Scripture that could help explain the meaning. First and 30:12 states, “they gave him a piece of a cake of figs and two clusters of raisins. And when he had eaten, his spirit revived, for he had not eaten bread or drunk water for three days and three nights,” (ESV). This is the same Hebrew expression, which simply means a period of time that threaten his man's survival. I believe this strong evidence that suggests this phrase may have just been a common expression throughout the Semitic speaking world.

In conclusion, we can now see that it is possible to view the Jonah 2:1 with the possible background of the descent of Ishtar, which was originally a Sumerian myth describing Inanna’s rather whimsical flood into the underworld. In addition, according to my estimation, it doesn't seem very likely that need to be read as a reference to the Akkadian myth.

---

[1] 1 Sa 30:12 and Jo 2:1.

[2] Leslie C. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obedianh, Jonah and Micah, (Grand Rapids: William B. Erdmans Publishing Company, 1976), 213.

[3] William W. Hallo, “Compare and Contrast: Contextual Approach to Biblical Literature,” in The Bible in Light of Cuneiform Literature, (New York: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1990), 2.

[4] James B. Pritchard, Ancient near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950), 52.

[5] James B. Pritchard, Ancient near Eastern Texts, 107.

[6] Empires of the Word: A Language History of the World, (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2005), 55.

[7] Emperors of the Word, 40.

[8] James B. Pritchard, Ancient near Eastern Texts, 52

[9] James B. Pritchard, Ancient near Eastern Texts, 53.

[10] Ibid. , 53.

[11] Ibid., 53.

[12] Ibid., 54.

[13] Ibid., 55.

[14] Ibid., 55.

[15] Ibid., 55.

[16] Ibid., 55.

[17] Ibid., 106.

[18] Ibid., 108.

[19] Ibid., 108.

[20] Leslie C. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obedianh, Jonah and Micah, 186.

[21] Ibid., 186.

[22] Ibid., 186.

[23] Nicholas Ostler, Empires of the Word, 60.

[24] The Akkadians made use of the Sumerian Syllabary for their written system. Ostler explains, “The only way to understand Akkadian cuneiflorm writing was to see it as an attempt to reinterpret & system that has been designed for Sumerian use. The intricacy, and probably the prestige, of the early Sumerian writing has been such that any outsiders who wanted to adopt it for their own language had largely had to take the Sumerian language with it,” Empires of the Word, 50.

ARE STUDANTS WASTING TIME STUDYING THEOLOGY?

I have noticed a critical tension between some seminary students and their teachers. This tension can be described as a conflict of ideals between theory and practice. Specifically, the conflict clearly seen in between what teacher has to say about theology and how a student believes that discipline to be relevant to the practice of ministry. To put it more bluntly, many who are preparing to enter ministry do not believe that the discipline of theology has any direct relevance for the practice of their ministry. However, I would contend that the discipline of theology is essential for the task of ministry. This is true because “theological discourse” provides the essential framework, which defines Christian ministry. This does not mean that the tasks of ministry and theology are completely identical. However, Christian ministry and theology do have two overlapping concerns: the knowledge of God and the systematic study of Scripture. In the final analysis, the so-called conflict of ideals is a disingenuous barrier set up by the seminary student. However, this does not have to be the case. If the relationship between theology and ministry is understood properly, then both the minister and the theologian can work together in such a way that complements the other for their mutual benefit.

Before I explain what I mean by this, let me state that the primary purpose of this essay is to underscore the direct and immediate relevance of the discipline of theology for the seminary student who is planning to enter into a primary role of ministry (i.e. pastor, missionary, Christian educator). The secondary purpose is to enter into a dialogue with those who are critical of the idea that theology has any place in the practice of ministry. The essay will therefore be divided into two parts. The first part shall give my argument for the place of theology with in the task of ministry. The second part shall provide some of my answers to objections to this idea, which I have encountered over the years. I will conclude this essay by inviting the reader to respond to several questions that I have for him or her.

THE PLACE OF THEOLOGY IN CHRISTRIAN MINISTRY

If seminary student is to understand the relevance of theology for his ministry, then he must understand the place of theological discourse with in his ministry. I would argue that the place of theological discourse is essential for the task of ministry, because theology provides the essential framework, which defines Christian ministry. In other words, if a ministry is truly Christian, then it must be practiced with a mental framework that has been shaped by theology.

In order to show the reader how this is true, let me first define what I mean by Christian ministry. Christian ministry is primarily the task of making known the Gospel of Jesus Christ so that it may be further appropriated in the lives of God's people and made available to those who have not heard. Notice, that I am using two words to describe what most pastors or missionaries may generically refer to as ministry. According to my definition, the term "ministry" primarily designates the task of making known and making available. The term "Christian" primarily designates what kind of ministry is being practiced. Of course, the term “Christian” refers to the total content of the Gospel as represented in the canonical Scriptures and shaped by theological discourse. According to this terminology that what defines ministry as “Christian” is not that a Christian is the one who is practicing, although it should certainly be the case that a Christian is the one who is practicing the task. My point is that logically Christian ministry is defined by the total content of Scripture and as a consequence Christians are the ones who fill the various roles of ministry

So now what do I mean by theology? Of course, theology can be generally defined as the study of God. Additionally, Herman Bavinck defines the task of theology as “thinking God's thoughts after him and to trace their unity.”[1] More specifically, theology can be defined as: primarily the task of acquiring knowledge about God through a careful study of his creation and through his revealed for the purpose contributing to a common place of discourse that seeks to glorify God and edify his saints. Notice that theology is in task that is focused on studying God in the various ways he has been revealed. In addition, notice that this task has the purpose of contributing to a commonplace of discussion. This means that there is a defined field of discourse in which theology is discussed.
So how are these two concepts related? First, it must be stated that both theology and ministry are a task. Second, they are tasks concerned about the knowledge of God as it is revealed in the Scriptures. Third, they are both concerned about establishing a common dialogue. Fourth, they share an identical method, although this is not always very obvious).

How do ministry and theology differ? Fundamentally they only differ with regard to different with regard to three things: purpose of method, audience, and way of reasoning. First, the purpose of the theological method used to acquire knowledge of God whereas the purpose of the method of ministry is to make God known. Second, the task of ministry is more concerned about the public proclamation whereas theology is more concerned about the private academic discussion. This means Christian ministry is more concerned about a wide reaching public dialogue whereas the task of theology is more concerned about a more narrowly defined in-house dialogue. Third, a minister may be more concerned about providing a deductive approach to Scripture whereas a theologian may be more concerned about conducting an inductive analysis of Scripture. In other words, a minister is probably more inclined to reason starting with the facts of the Gospel and ending with a deduction concerning its most relevant implications for his/her listeners. The theologian, however, may be more inclined to conduct inductive analysis of Scripture starting with a question about what may not be presently known about any given portion of Scripture.

So in what way is theology essential for ministry? If ministry is primarily concerned with the public proclamation about the knowledge of God, then logically theology is a prerequisite task since theology aims at acquiring that knowledge. This means that a ministry cannot be called Christian unless it is defined by the content produced by the task theology. In other words, one cannot broadcast anything about God (in a Christian manner) unless one first knows something about God. The bottom line is that any Christian who neglects the task of theology within his/her ministry lacks the essential content that should rightfully frame Christian ministry.

This understanding is significant because ministry and theology are essentially bound together at an ideological level. That is, they are in complete agreement with regards to the content of their task (knowledge of God); the method of their task (exegetical analysis); and the function of the task (i.e. discourse in reference to the mission of the church). They only differ with regard to the ways they appropriate to their task: purpose of method (acquisition versus making use of); audience (public versus academic); and direction of reasoning (inductive versus deductive. This means that theology and ministry are in substantial ideological agreement and only differ inferentially.

So if it is indeed true that both theology and ministry maintain similar ideals, in what ways can they complement each other? They complement each other with regard to how they differ in their approach to the exegetical method. Theology primarily aimed at acquiring knowledge through the use of that method for the purpose of contributing to a place of common discussion. That "place" for the theologian is not only the walls of academia but also the walls of the cathedral. Theology has direct implications for the church. However, the minister is presumably the one who is standing within the church. This means that the theologian aims at contributing to a discussion that involves ministers. In a way, the minister is a recipient of the theologian, in another way he is also a contributor to that commonplace. The minister may be able to acquire public responses to the Word of God. That is, as he engages with his church/the world he will presumably find questions that the theologian may or may not have acquired otherwise. In this way, the theologian and pastor complement one another.

The minister must keep one ear attuned to the discourse of theology as well has the discourse of the public. If the minister fails to acknowledge first the priority of the theological task, then he will fail not only his public audience but also his theological audience. That is, the minister will fail to be in a position to actually contribute to theological discourse. Consequently, the theologian will fail to receive any questions or concerns that are more likely to be directed at those practically involved in ministry. The bottom line is that those who are involved in practical ministry are capable of protecting theology from becoming merely an academic discipline. I realize that the responsibility here is not merely one-sided, but my point is that the division between academia and ministry is not essentially an ideological divide. The division can be attributed to a failure to continue practicing theology within the field of ministry.

OBJECTIONS TO THE THESIS THAT THEOLOGY IS ESSENTIAL FOR MINISTRY

Over the course of the past seven years I have encountered about ten objections to the idea that theology is essential for the task of ministry. Now, although many of these objections are accusatory in nature, I believe most of them are motivated by a genuine desire to serve other people in ministry and glorify God. In addition, although some of them may be framed in a derogatory manner, most of them address genuine concerns within the field of theology. The reason I can say that genuine is that theology has answers to these objections. In the following paragraphs I hope to provide some answers to these objections. My answers are by no means complete, but I hope that they at least facilitate a common point of understanding between the theologian and the minister.

Objections regarding the practical relevance of theology

OBJECTION #1-“I just want to serve God.” The idea here is that serving God is somehow distinct from studying God. However, I would argue that it is impossible to serve God without also studying him. In fact, We do Him a great service by studying Him. For how else can know that we are serving God unless we know precisely who He is? How else can you God but through a consistent discipline of acquiring knowledge about God. The bottom line is that this objection places unfair judgment upon the theologian. It seems that studying God is not in any way a service to God.

OBJECTION #2—“I just want to be practical.” This objection is a little bit more understandable. Theology is decidedly theoretical and ministry is more task oriented. However, these two still require one another. In minister cannot practice the task of Christian ministry without reference to the task of theology. Notice that both the minister and the theologian are doing something. The difference in their task is the goal. The goal of the theologian is to acquire knowledge about God, but the goal of the minister is to help others know about God so that they can apply his word to their lives. Notice that both the theologian and the minister are trying to convey knowledge about God. In a sense both are theoretically bound together. Theoretical simply means to show what is known. The theologian is trying to see for himself more clearly so that he can articulate a coherent theology about what he learned, but the minister is attempting to convey to others what is already known about God. The bottom line is that the theologian is concern about the status of the knowledge of God but the minister is concern about other peoples awareness and application of that knowledge. So is it wrong for the minister to be practically oriented? By no means! However, he must recognize that his practice is framed in a large degree by theological discourse.

OBJECTION #3—“I don't think it really makes a difference whether I am a Calvinist or an Arminian.” I would argue that it does make a difference. In fact, it makes an essential difference if one is conducting a ministry on the basis of the Scriptures. To say that it doesn't would mean that an interpretation of Scripture is merely governed by an arbitrary interpretation of it. The deeper concern in his complaint is that historical disputes about theology are simply just that. They are disputes that have happened in the past but do not really continue to the present day. In fact, the person that made this complaint argued with me that the only one who cares about disputes between Calvinism and Arminianism are academic theologian. I would contend that this is not wholly true. For although a missionary can/will encounter people who have never heard about this dispute, he will in all likelihood run into this conflict. In other words, the disputes that we learn about in history are likely to occur again in different environments and in somewhat different terminology. The history of theology not only informs us about the past but it also prepares us for the future.

Objections regarding What Can Be Known about God

OBJECTION #4—“I think God is much bigger than Calvinism.” This objection is unfair. The objection is unfair because characterizes the limits of a theological statement (i.e. the synod of Dort) as a theological failure. Basically, this objection argues that the five points of Calvinism say absolutely nothing about the mystery of God and therefore anyone who calls themselves a Calvinist does not believe that there is any ministry about God. This simply is not true. Yes, it is true that the five points of Calvinism do not fully capture who God is in all of his glory and ministry. However, is not true that Calvinism has simply failed at this point. In addition, I don't know of anyone who has claimed that God is identical with Calvinism. Calvinism is most definitely a theological construct and God is the creator and Redeemer of the universe. There simply is no comparison at this point. The question is not: what is bigger God or Calvinism? The question is: does Calvinism say something true about God?

OBJECTION #5—“I don't think we should know everything about God.” Yes, this objection is absolutely right. There are things that we can and ought to know about God, however there are also things that we should not know about God. Calvin repeatedly makes this point throughout his institutes. He calls this the “pious limits” about our knowledge of God. Meaning, that that Christian epistemology also contains ethical limits. These limits can be discovered in several ways. The first way is motivation. Every question about God has a specific motivation, however if that motivation seeks to subordinate God or somehow placed him on trial (e.g. Exodus 17), and that question is improper to ask. Another way to limit is set is by Scripture itself. If the Scripture does not address the question, it could be possible that it is not a question we need to ask but this is not an absolute rule. However, there are also places in Scripture which specifically forbid certain questions (e.g. Romans 9:20). Ironically, the same person that make this objection also think the objection about God being bigger than Calvinism!

OBJECTION #6—“knowledge puffs up.” Logically, the idea is that somehow there is a causal link between intellectual endeavors and pride. Theologically, the idea is that a true follower of Jesus somehow must maintain an anti-intellectual stance. This position seems to justified by Jesus himself. Repeatedly is portrayed in the Gospels as somebody who is constantly criticizing the intelligentsia of his day. In many ways this is true. However, this does not mean that Jesus himself was anti-intellectual as such. In fact, Jesus often astounded people with the fact that he had such great learning. In addition, Jesus did not criticize the impact of intellectual pursuit itself. In fact, in the Gospel of Matthew Jesus has a special blessing reserved for those who aspire to become scribes for Jesus.

OBJECTIONS ABOUT HOW GOD IS KNOWN

OBJECTION #7—“Theology is for professors and not those in the field” this is a very understandable objection because it rightly recognizes the difference of arenas for each task. However, I would contend that this criticism over plays the distinction in such a way that it undermines the unity of theology and ministry. Yes, it is true that theology and ministry operates within two different spheres of discourse. Theology operates with in a more academic sphere of discourse where as ministry operates with in a more public sphere of discourse (the exception to this rule is college ministry, which is by definition both public and academic). However, one should not overlook the continuity between theological and ministry. The minister should understand how theological discourse operates within the mental framework of ministry in such a way that it supports supports continuity. In addition, it should be noted that one should not mistake the audience of theological discourse for the purpose of theology. In many ways the audience of theological discourse is primarily an academic audience, however the purpose of that discourse is for the building up of the church. This does not mean there is no such thing as purely academic theology, however Christian theology in its surest form seeks to build up the church and glorify God. The minister is somebody (ideally) who is an academic recipient of theological discourse, but a publisher of sorts for theology. If I could rephrase this objection, then I would say: the audience of theological discourse is primarily for academic professors and the overall purpose for theology is for the church, which includes those with in the field. Or my counter and objection would be: theological discourse is for theological professors and those in the field, but it is not for those who constitute the public audience of the field.

OBJECTION #8—“What does the professor know anyway”—this criticism is down right belligerent, however it does aim at a genuine concern for theology. The criticism is basically seeking to understand the relationship between a theological criteria and a professional theologian. However, if one wants to question the credentials of a particular professor, one must understand what constitutes as a proper theological criterion. One must come to terms with what theology is as a discipline, how it is practiced, what are its sources, what is its purpose, and finally what is it significance. In other words, one cannot make this criticism sincerely unless one first take seriously the task of theology as a whole. If one was in ministry arbitrarily (that is, without any proper, clear, inconsistent criterion) criticizes a particular professor, then that person is setting themselves up to be judged in a similar manner. This is simply an unfair criterion and does not allow for mutual respect and a complementary relationship.

OBJECTION #9—“Jesus wasn't a Calvinist”-- this criticism can be read in two different ways. First, Calvinism should not be adopted on the basis that Jesus himself did not describe his own theology in the same terms of Calvinism. Secondly, there is no theology that should be adopted by the church, which has not first been adopted by Jesus. Since the paper is focused on theology in general, we will assume the latter interpretation. I will grant to this objection that there should be no theology that contradicts what is essential to Jesus is theology, however quite frankly the scope of Jesus's teachings simply does not account for the whole of theology. In fact, there are many questions that Jesus’ teachings do not address. This does not mean that any doctrine that is formulated beyond the scope of Jesus’ historical teachings should be rejected. A famous example of doctrine that goes beyond the scope of Jesus teaching is of course the question of the Gentiles. The scope of Jesus Ministry was simply to the lost sheep of Israel. This did not mean he never made an exception to this rule, but he was very much focused on ethnic Israel. However, after his death there were many who began to convert to “the way” who were not of ethnic Israel. This brought about many questions that simply had not been addressed before this point in time.

An objection regarding my definition of Christian ministry

OBJECTION #10-“Phil’s model of ministry basically assumes a pastor/teacher role, which does not adequately include every type of ministry, specifically Mercy ministries and support role ministries.”-- this is a very strong criticism, which requires some further explanation. Basically, this criticism challenges my definition for ministry, which is: the task of making known the Gospel of Jesus Christ so that it may be further appropriated in the lives of God's people and made available to those who have not heard. This criticism correctly recognizes that this definition of ministry only converse the tasks of teaching, preaching, and evangelism. The objection is that I do not make room for any type of ministry and that is further removed from the task of preaching. The implied conclusion is: therefore there are other ministerial roles that do not require theological discourse.

I have three problems with this objection. First, the definition of so-called “support role.” Second, the logic of the objection. Third, the blatant lack of biblical evidence for this objection.

First, what do you mean by “support role”? Do you mean that your task necessarily supports somebody who is directly involved in the tasks of teaching/preaching/evangelism or that your task somehow generally supports the task of teaching and preaching? My suspicion is that many people who make this objection are invoking the latter definition of support role. My fear is that we have too hastily created a secondary role of ministry, which we believe to be both necessary and somehow less responsible for biblical teaching and clearly defined theological doctrine. As a consequence, I believe that this thinking has permitted an indefinite amount of so-called “specialized roles” for ministry. In other words, if this objection is to be maintained, one must take the former definition for “support role.”

Second, the logic of the objection is invalid. Even if the objector takes the former definition for “support role,” his/logic is in error. His argument goes something like this: Phil’s definition for ministry excludes the place of support role Ministry; I am in support role Ministry; therefore I am excluded from the task of theology. However, I would contend that this objector's definition of support role does not allow for this argument because their task is one of necessary involvement with somebody who is primarily involved with teaching/preaching/evangelism. This means that their task necessarily ameliorates the conditions for the primary role minister. If it is true that they are this closely involved with the task of teaching, then that means this person will need to be thinking along the same lines as the one they support. It is true that they may not be as directly involved with the task of teaching, but this does not free them from the task of thinking along these lines. For example, a church administer is someone who fits this definition of the “support role” very well. A church administer does many tasks which seem atheological in nature (e.g. receiving phone calls, planning meetings, responding to e-mails, organizing church functions). However, notice that all of his/her tasks operate within a church context. This means that the very nature of his/her tasks is always assuming the broad question: what is the church? This means that all of the tasks are in some way addressing the question about ecclesiology. Imagine the infinite amount of scenarios that could go horribly tragic, if the church administer did not think with reference to the church. This means that he/she would neglect to think about proper conduct and church structure. In many ways, the church administer should be more careful about theological analysis than the pastor because the church administer must answer a whole host of questions that do not have direct and immediate answers within the scope of Scripture! In addition, it must be noted that this present paper is actually also addressing ecclesiological questions. Very broadly this paper is a dressing a question about the nature of the relationship between seminary and regular church practice.

Third, this objection has a blatant lack of evidence from Scripture. Please do not be deceived. The idea of the “support role” is not a modern invention. This role has clear historical precedent in the book of Acts. The book of acts describes a scenario where “widows were being neglected in the daily distribution,” (Act 6:1 ESV). After this scenario is brought to the awareness of the disciples, they respond, “"It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. (Act 6:2 ESV). Notice, the disciples are the one who recognize that their primary task is the proclamation of the word of God. They are the ones who recognize that there is tasks that need to happen within a church context that are not strictly oriented with reference to teaching. The apostles therefore create the “support role” ministry, but not without reference to a theological criteria. The apostles state, “pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty.” (Act 6:3 ESV). Notice the rough criteria here: a good reputation, a believer, and one who is wise. There is much to be said about this criterion, but let me draw your attention to the last criteria: wisdom. What is wisdom? Wisdom is basically skill or application of knowledge. The idea of wisdom here is in reference to knowledge of Scripture. Later on in the story Stephen is portrayed as somebody who is doing signs and wonders among the people and disputing theological matters with the local intelligentsia in the synagogues. Luke states, “And Stephen, full of grace and power, was doing great wonders and signs among the people. Then some of those who belonged to the synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called), and of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of those from Cilicia and Asia, rose up and disputed with Stephen. But they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking.” (Act 6:8-10 ESV). Notice that Luke uses the same word “wisdom” with reference to Stephen. This is actually the second occurrence of the word “wisdom” in Acts. Notice that this word is not in reference to his ability to wait tables, but it is with reference to his ability to make intelligent dispute with the local intelligentsia.

Now, it could be argued that Stephen is certainly a unique case. It could even be further argued that the church at Jerusalem by no means represents the ideal church. I can gladly acknowledge both of these truths, however the idea that a “support role” Minister should be without the qualification of “wisdom” is not so easily cast aside. The apostle Paul states later on that deacons (that is, the office that was first created in Acts 6:1), “They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience,” (1Ti 3:9 ESV). This means that deacons must be clear on the doctrines of faith. How else can one have a clean conscience about faith unless one has first come to terms with doctrine?

The bottom line is a “support role” Minister must operate in a necessary relationship to the task of preaching. This means he/she should always be working with reference to a broad theological reference. Although their task may not be as immediately involved with teaching/preaching/evangelism, their task still requires that they think along the same lines as the ones they support. Finally, Scripture itself prescribes the requirements of “wisdom” and “a clear conscience” for these roles. This means that “support role” ministries have a scriptural mandate to fulfill despite any attempts they may make advance against my basic argument.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I have argued that the task of theology is the essential for the task of ministry because theological discourse provides the basic framework for Christian ministry. This does not mean that ministry and theology are identical. Theological discourse aims at a specific academic audience whereas ministry aims at a broad public audience, which is not necessarily academically oriented. However, the minister is simultaneously part of the theological audience while being a mouthpiece for the knowledge of God. The minister maintains a dual identity with the theologian because he shares two concerns with the theologian: the knowledge of God and the exegetical method. If the minister is willing to acknowledge his dual identity, then he is in a position to not only provide a clear theological understanding to his audience, but also complement the theologian by providing questions for theology, which have been posed by his broader public audience. That is, the minister is in a position to receive questions that the professional theologian may otherwise neglect. My hope is that the minister can recognize this dual identity so that he may rightfully claim his vital role within the field of theological discourse. This way there can be practical continuity between the seminary and the pulpit.
My argument for the place of theology is not without some objections. Many of these objections are genuine. However, some of these objections are simply unfair caricatures of the nature, limits, method, and scope of theology. My hope is that I have provided some substantial replies to these objections. In effect, I hope I have made a contribution towards further discussion. I invite the reader to provide further objections or perhaps replies. Let the reader know that my high purpose and all this is theology for the glory of God!

---

[1] Reformed Dogmatics: Prolegomena, vol., 1, translated by John Vriend, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 25

The Talmud and Yiddish

At first glance the Talmud would appear to be a monumental work of very limited significance. That is, it would appear that interest is mainly generated for a very limited scope of understanding. In part this is true, but I would suggest that the Talmud holds the wide variety of applications. That is, it can be consulted for more than just the specifics of Jewish law. One very fascinating point of interest is the fact that the Talmud represents in some ways the embryo of modern spoken Yiddish. Of course, it is true that the Talmud is primarily written in Hebrew and Aramaic, however as it continued to be used in other language contexts it also helped form and inform the language of Yiddish. Michael Wex explains that “from a linguistic point of view the Talmud is nothing less than Yiddish in utero. The Jews who initiated the transmutation of Germany into Yiddish wore those Jews most deeply connected to Jewish law, people for whom the categories and mental processes of halokhe, of Jewish law, were practically second nature.”[1] So if one is to begin to study the Talmud, one is able to begin to peer into the worldview that is present in most Yiddish. The question that is outstanding is: to what extent do language and worldview relate? Under what conditions do a language form a worldview?

---

[1] Born to Kevtch: Yiddish language and culture in all of its moods, (New York: Harper Perennial, 2005), 15