Comments and Replies ... and Who We Are

TANATA is devoted to discussing the paradoxes and the mysteries of life, among which is the paradox of the coexistence of good and evil. “God is love,” John tells us. Evil exists, we would suggest, not because God is detached or unconcerned, but because free will exists which is required for true, unforced love to exist. Still, it is painfully hard to reconcile this paradox. We believe that all evil one day will be judged and destroyed, until then we must pray.

DANIEL 7:13-14

13 “I was watching in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him.

14 Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed.


7 Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen.

No RSS feeds have been linked to this section.
Powered by Squarespace



Bathsheba Is Missing!

Bathsheba, a Sabean, an African, the mother of Solomon, is noticeably (if not glaringly) missing from an important genealogy of Jesus that begins the Gospel of Matthew. 

The original Greek manuscripts of Matthew’s Gospel in the New Testament contain this startling omission, a significant redaction at the very outset of the first Gospel (Matthew 1.6) — a gap in the genealogy of Jesus. Though translations will vary, this is how the verse in question reads in the New King James version: “David the king begot Solomon by her … of Uriah.”

Hmm. Who made this rather awkward correction, or omission, and why? Did someone just slip up and smear or accidentally scribble through the words of Matthew, “Bathsheba, wife …”? Or was there intent behind the omission? (I feel the plot for a new screenplay developing.) Did someone mean to blur the prophetic type of Jesus that Solomon happens to be?

Bathsheba’s story is found in 2 Samuel 11.1, 12.25. It is a famous account, one which describes Bathsheba as taking a “bath,” coincidentally, when King David spots her on a roof not far from the roof of the king’s palace and sends for her. One thing leads to another, and the beautiful Sabean/Ethiopian woman becomes pregnant. In an effort to hide his lustful deed and paternity, David sends for Uriah, Bathsheba’s husband who is away at war, and offers him the chance to sleep with his wife during his brief furlough. But Uriah declines, not wishing to appear to be the beneficiary of special treatment before the comrades with whom Uriah is fighting. And so, David orders Uriah sent to the front lines, where he will surely be killed in combat. The incredibly cruel trick works and Uriah is killed.

The child Bathsheba carries also dies, and the prophet Nathan gives David a “butt chewing” couched in an analogy or a parable, a trap into which David falls and condemns himself. But Bathsheba becomes pregnant again, and this pregnancy results in Solomon, who becomes king after Bathsheba’s insistence. It’s the least that David can do, one would have to say — having ruined Bathsheba’s life with her husband, in effect.

So, where is Bathsheba in this genealogy … and why was she so awkwardly, ungrammatically removed from the verse which features the names of David, Uriah and Bathsheba’s son Solomon? The answer may be found in the art which very clearly, poignantly and timelessly exists in the Bible, something which no other document, holy or otherwise, of ancient, sacred origins possesses. It is the presence of forerunners and their fulfillment, types and antitypes, recurring figures, which sets the Bible apart from all other written works, validating it in the process. Solomon is a type of Jesus, who is the antitype, hence, Jesus having been called the Son of David, as Solomon was.

Any guesses as to why?

Experts say that though Matthew’s Gospel appears first, ahead of the other three in the New Testament, the account of the life and times of Jesus by Matthew very apparently used the gospel of Mark as a primary source. Bible scholars say the same is true of the Gospel of Luke.

The plot thickens. It is always thickening for those who recognize and appreciate the ancient story of the Hebrews and God’s promises to restore the sinful chosen people in the end. Sadly, war for Israel must come first.