Connecting Intertestamental writings to canonical (so-called, authorized) Biblical books is a new endeavor for me. I suppose my interest in history, particularly, biblical and ancient history has led me to the writings of the Church Fathers and desert monks in early Christian development. Much of my current search has been fostered by Eastern Orthodox and some Roman Catholic sources; whereas, my faith tradition mostly was founded in the Reformation Movements of the middle ages. The sources for this article are from Orthodox priest Stephen De Young and from the Lexham English Septuagint Bible. While my understanding is that there are multiple “Septuagint” documents, many people with reformed church backgrounds may not be familiar with this term. The Septuagint is abbreviated by LXX – referring to the 70 scribes, as custom indicates, who translated the Hebrew scriptures into the Greek language in the second century BCE. During the time of Alexander’s conquest of the known world, Greek became the lingua franca of its day, much like English has been largely adopted today as a common world-wide language that dominates the commercial communications. This Greek speaking world also dominated the Mediterranean and middle east countries prior to the time of Christ, whereas, many Jews spoke and wrote Greek much more than their ancestral Hebrew language. Therefore, the Greek Bible (Septuagint) became the “bible” that many Jews used during the time of Jesus and Paul.
Who was Baruch?
Baruch was mentioned in the Book of Jeremiah as the prophet’s scribe, appearing as a minor figure in the (Protestant) Christian Old Testament.[1] “However, the more expansive Old Testaments used by Latin, Greek and Slavonic traditions include the Book of Baruch. In addition, three more texts exist that bear his name, numbered Second, third, and Fourth Baruch.” (De Young) His role as a scribe implies a level of education that would require him coming from a prominent Jerusalem family. Baruch lived during the 6th century BC at the time of the Babylonian exile of Judah and was purported to be a witness to the destruction of Solomon’s temple by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC. The Book of Baruch, used liturgically in the Orthodox and Catholic churches, is also commonly referred to as 1 Baruch. The books of Jeremiah, Lamentations and Baruch are commonly cited as “the prophecy of Jeremiah” since he is the prophet behind all three books. (De Young) As De Young surveys the four books of Baruch in his work, he summarizes the significance to the Church by identifying themes that are pertinent to the ongoing work of the Church. For example, when 4 Baruch dissuades intermarriage with those outside of the (Christian or non-Christian Jewish) communities, the intent is not about ethnic purity, but rather a preventive of seduction to false religions and spiritual practices. The idea is to not get “married” to the things in this present age which might pull a believer away from the life of the world to come.
Mike’s Meditations
While reading through some of these extra-biblical books, I cannot help but see the connections with the concepts and writings of the Old and New Testaments as I know them. Many times, the themes, and sometimes the near quotes from these sources correlate directly with each other. As I get more familiar with these non-canonical writings, it becomes apparent to me of the direct and indirect crossovers in the texts. We have some of these references in the Book of Jude and in Peter’s writings in our New Testament, but there are also eerily-like phraseology between canon and non-canonical works. When Paul, for example, was familiar with Athenian (pagan) poets who wrote, “For we are also His offspring,”[2] (Acts 17:28), he demonstrated his knowledge of “secular” writers of his day which (perhaps unwittingly) were supportive of his thesis in his sermon about the Athenians’ UNKNOWN GOD. I have a growing acceptance of the premise that TRUTH is TRUTH no matter from whence it is declared or demonstrated, even if by Balaam’s donkey (Numbers 22:22-28) or if the rocks cry out (Luke 19:40).
According to the Book of Baruch, Jeremiah’s scribe wrote a document that he read to the captive Jews in Babylonia. These Jews had been fasting, weeping and praying before the Lord God in this foreign land of exile. They took up a collection of money to send to a remnant of the Jews in Jerusalem (about 500 miles from Babylon) headed up by a priest named Jehoiakim who had taken the sanctuary instruments of Solomon’s temple back from Nebuchadnezzar’s captivity. These monetary donations were to be designated for the purchase of frankincense to be used as a burnt offering on the altar of the Lord God. These expatriates asked that in this offering, “…pray for the life of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and for the life of Belshazzar his son, in order that their days might be like the days of heaven on earth.” This reminded me of our Lord’s prayer taught to the disciples 500 years later, “Thy kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven…” (Matthew 6:10). Additionally, the apostle Paul instructed the church at Ephesus (via Timothy) to offer “…supplications, prayer, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence.” (1 Timothy 2:1-2). The request of these Jewish exiles predates the Gospel record and Apostolic letters in the New Testament which, both, confirm the validity of their prayer requests.
The purpose of these relocated Jews going to such extreme efforts to have prayers and offerings presented at the traditional location of the Lord’s altar in Jerusalem was so that the “…Lord will give strength to us and illuminate our eyes and we will live under the shadow of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and under the shadow of Belshazzar his son, and we will serve them many days and find favor before them.” (Baruch 1:12). Paul uses the same word (illuminate) as Baruch when he prayed “…(that) the eyes of your understanding being enlightened (Illuminated)…” (Ephesians 1:18). With regard to the reference to the word, shadow, it was commonly used in contrast to reality and denotes the worthlessness of things, as well as used for shade of a dead person. This points to the exiles’ longing for the reality of being back where they belong, in their homeland rather than under the shadow of Babylon.
In reading the first chapter of 1 Baruch, I noticed the frequency of the exiles’ confessions of how they wronged the Lord God (Yahweh). Thus, they were living in the consequences of their sins of which Moses predicted way back in the wilderness of Sinai. They believed that the wrath of the Lord had not yet been completely turned from them, else they would have been restored to their homeland. This awareness was evident in their request to Jehoiakim to read this document of confession in the house of the Lord which acknowledged Judah’s sins done by their kings, rulers, priests, prophets and ancestors. This confession included a reference of having resisted HIM and not listening to the VOICE OF THE LORD GOD. They had acted carelessly without regard to hearing HIS VOICE. Thus, the troubles and curse which Moses had pronounced had been prescribed by the Lord to follow them. They continually had ignored the words of the prophets whom the Lord had sent to them which was the VOICE OF THE LORD GOD. Summing up this chapter, Baruch records that “…each one pursued the intention of his evil heart to serve other gods, to do evil in the eyes of the Lord Our God.” (Baruch 1:22). One cannot really miss this age-old problem which extended back to the days of Noah. “Now the Lord God saw that the wicked actions of humans multiplied upon the earth, and everyone was focused in his heart on evil things all their days.”[3] (Genesis 6:5). The rainbow covenant made with Noah is still in effect today. Just as Noah was cast off the land for a period of time to be thrown about on the chaos of the seas, Judah was cast off their land for a period of time under the chaos shadow of Nebuchadnezzar. In both covenants (Noah and Moses) a remnant was preserved…despite the evil intents of HIS image-bearers.
Final Thoughts
In the days of Noah, the Lord said that everyone was focused on the intents of their evil hearts. In the days of Abraham, he negotiated with the Lord about Sodom’s future existence – avoiding the judgment of Yahweh. What if there are only 10 righteous? Abraham’s final bid was accepted by the Lord. (Genesis 18:32). Yet, not even ten righteous were in the whole city. Thus, destruction. In the days of Baruch, 2½ tribes (Judah, Benjamin and half of Levi) were a remnant preserved in Babylon of the original 12 tribes of Jacob. So, what percentage of the population does the Lord deem as appropriate to save? Certainly, such is an uninformed question about the mind of the Lord. Yet, I cannot help but wonder if America has crossed that unnamed threshold with her idolatry and wickedness.
The world did not repent when they heard Noah, that preacher of righteousness. Nor did Sodom amend their ways with the testimony of righteous Lot living in their midst. Likewise, Judah (Jeremiah 32:35-36) sinned specifically by offering child sacrifices to Moloch (Leviticus 20:2-5) with the direct result of exile from their land into captivity. When I see the current political and cultural fervor insisting on the right to abortion in our country, I fail to see the distinction from this sin of ancient Judah. When our rulers, politicians, priests, influencers, leaders, Christians, denominations, institutions, and evidently the majority of women in our country (according to the pollsters) demand the so-called reproductive right to terminate a life begun, what is the substantial difference from Judah offering their babies to this god which the Lord calls an abomination? The misnomer of reproductive rights needs to be accurately restated as deproductive rights since abortion is not about reproduction, but termination of life. Our world has continued to stretch, advance and declare such behaviors as rights. But, as with Sodom, the Lord knows who is righteous according to His standards. Not even 10 in the city of Sodom. What about our city? In our inane declaration of all these modern day “rights”, who are making those declarations? Is it not those who do not acknowledge the One God, Creator of All whom only can declare what HE deems as right. For those of us who self-identify as belonging to Christ, thus counting on His righteousness being imputed to us – is there any mandate that we maintain that righteousness? Does the mandate for us to remain in the vine (John 15:6) have any instructional qualifications in the new covenant where Jesus threatens to cast out a withered branch to receive a fiery judgment? Then the churches and so-called spiritual leaders who have the form of godliness but deny the power thereof – they adopt the self-declared righteousness of this age…just like the priests and prophets in the days of Baruch. Have I, then, extrapolated scriptures and misappropriated them, not interpreting their application to us today? My confession is that I don’t fully know the ways of the Lord nor are my thoughts fully accessible to His thoughts (Isaiah 55: 8-9), but somehow, my conscience cannot reject the parallels between Israel’s history and our own day.
Perhaps it will take an “exile” for America to come to the place of national confession as the captive Jews did in Babylon. Will we avert the hand of the Lord’s judgment via confession of our evil prior to any such judgment? I do not know if America can even see that large swaths of our society call good evil and evil good. That segment of our culture has a large voice, but I do not think it to be the VOICE OF THE LORD GOD. Elijah, a forefather of our faith, thought that he alone was the faithful survivor of Yahweh worship, but the Lord spoke to him in a quiet voice, (1 Kings 19:9-18) informing him that there was still a remnant faithful to HIM in Israel…but only 7,000 in the entire nation. Is our national conscience so seared that we twist the Word of God to ameliorate any need for confession? As long as we declare our rights we are incapable of seeing a need for confession. For a country founded with a prominent Protestant ethic and a widespread familiarity of the Biblical Scriptures, wherein can the argument be made for wholesale abortion, up to and after birth? I suppose those theologians are out there, but I have yet to hear sound scriptural underpinnings that advocate the righteousness of abortion. Usually, the arguments are framed in terms of rights. My understanding of the Holy Scriptures seem to be thin with regard to the declaration of individual rights…an argument that may be quite suspect when being held accountable before the Judge of judges one day. Yet, the mercies of God are new every morning.
Admittedly, all of my questions are embedded in my Biblical world view. Are those views perfectly formulated? Probably not. But are they founded on an ethic that is beyond my own sense of right and wrong? I think so. Baruch points out to us, whether fictional or historical, that the people of God had need to align their acts with God’s declarations of righteousness for they had resisted God’s righteous declarations from the beginning of their national identity. That corrective took place in a land of exile (Babylon) where His people came to see that they were destroying the inheritance of those whom the Lord mandated Adam to multiply (Genesis 1:28) – not destroy. “ People function on the basis of their world view more consistently than even they themselves may realize. The problem is not outward things. The problem is having, and then acting upon, the right world view – the world view that gives men and women the truth of what is.”[4] In 1976, Francis Schaeffer asked How Should We Then Live? Perhaps this question should be revisited by us in 2024.
[1] De Young, Stephen, APOCRYPHA: An Introduction to Extra-Biblical Literature, Chesterton: Ancient Faith Publishing, 2023.
[2] THE HOLY BIBLE, New King James Version, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishing, 2010.
[3] LEXHAM ENGLISH SEPTUAGINT, Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2019.
[4] Schaeffer, Francis A., How Should We Then Live?, Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1976.