Off to Chicago-Land, Update on Things

Thanksgiving is here (obviously).

I am still on a bit of a high from the SBL conference (see previous posts). I had a nice note from Michael Legaspi about yesterday’s post. I also got a bit of push-back on another blog where historical criticism is the preferred method:

http://scholarlybound.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/notions-of-history-and-memory/

I am off this morning to Chicago for Thanksgiving with Linda’s family. While there I will be reading two of the new books I got at SBL.

One is a translation and commentary on Radak’s commentary on Chronicles. Radak is a 13th century French-Spanish Jewish exegete whose full name is David Kimhi. Why am I reading his commentary on Chronicles? Because I will be translating his commentary on Ezekiel soon as part of my reading Ezekiel in preparation for doctoral studies. I am a lover of the medieval Jewish exegetes, like Rashi, Ramban (Nachmanides), Ibn Ezra, Radak, and so on. I figure reading his commentary on Chronicles will give me some idea of his style and so on. There is no English translation of Radak’s commentary on Ezekiel (hmm, publishing potential).

I will also be reading a new commentary on Ezekiel by Paul Joyce. He is the co-chair of the Ezekiel section at SBL. His commentary is concise and will help me get caught up on the who’s who of Ezekiel studies and what the current state of scholarship is. I now own six commentaries on Ezekiel (some of them expensive, but not Joyce’s short volume).

I have also been working on, and will keep working on, a Haggadah for the Birth of Messiah. Few people know I am working on this project. Some will even be offended that I am doing such a thing (there are some in the Messianic Jewish movement who do not merely refrain from celebrating Christmas, but who feel it is pagan and syncretistic).

While I do not celebrate Christmas, I am working on this Haggadah for two reasons. First, I think of the many intermarried families in our movement for whom Christmas is a troubling issue. The Haggadah I am preparing should help to make such a families commemoration meaningful and focused on the text in interaction with Jewish prayer about the coming of Messiah.

Second, though commemorating his birth is certainly not commanded, to honor at some time or times during the year, the birth of our Rebbe and Messiah, seems only fitting. I also commemorate his death on Passover week and his resurrection on Firstfruits.

I hope to have a Haggadah ready by the second week of December. I have put together a few exciting ideas already.

Blessings to you from Chicago-land and may your Thanksgiving be filled with family and peace.

What is Historical Criticism?

On Saturday there was a fascinating session of papers at SBL (Society of Biblical Literature) called “What is Historical Criticism?”

The presenters were from Jewish and Christian backgrounds: Alan Cooper of Jewish Theological Seminary, Peter Machinist of Harvard, Francis Watson or Durham University, and Michael Legaspi of Creighton University.

The first thing I learned at this session is that I want to read anything Michael Legaspi writes. The guy really impressed me as a thinker and communicator. I learned how smart I am not while listening to him.

Historical criticism, simply put, is the idea of studying the Biblical texts scientifically, which has led to dissecting the Bible into many alleged source texts. You may have heard of JEDP or the documentary hypothesis, the idea that the books of Moses were written by a series of committees over a period of many hundreds of years and in five stages (add H for the fifth stage).

Alan Cooper spoke basically to say that for Jewish readers it is not difficult to uphold historical critical views of the text at the same time as upholding Torah as sacred authority. He traced some history of Jewish thought, showed that so-called pre-modern Jewish thinkers were more than capable of understanding historical critical issues, and so on. I won’t say much about his paper, though it was a good representation of his school of thought (which is, obviously, not mine).

Peter Machinist defined historical criticism as reading the Bible from its human side and seeing it as rooted in historical realities. He traced the development through five seminal thinkers. I would summarize, but the details might prove uninteresting to a lot of readers. I’m not really sure what point Machinist was making. I think he wanted to affirm a both-and approach.

The really interesting papers were the last two.

First, it is important to know that historical criticism has fallen on increasing disfavor. The whole project is so rationalist and assumes the possibility of so much knowledge and the superiority of the modern over pre-modern cultures, that in this post-modern age, the enterprise is looking more and more imperialistic.

Francis Watson of Durham University gave a provocative lecture. He said we should abandon the term historical criticism altogether for the following reasons:

(1) Biblical scholars are not historians and should not imply that we are.

(2) Historical criticism is not a neutral characterization. In its origin the term referred to textual criticism, which is about restoring texts. Historical criticism, by contrast, has been about doubting them. The historical critical movement has had an agenda to criticize, in the harsh sense, other views of the Bible.

(3) Historical criticism has claimed that its methods are objective, neutral, and not about dogma. This has been shown to be a farce.

(4) The real issue has been modernity and rationalism versus tradition.

(5) Historical approaches to a text are far from the totality of the work we do. Much Biblical scholarship is not historical but interpretive.

(6) The distance historical critics claim to put between themselves and the text is illusory.

(7) Therefore, we should talk about biblical studies or scholarship and make the term historical criticism defunct.

I was pretty jazzed after Watson’s presentation and the room was buzzing. But things only got better as Michael Legaspi gave a stinging critique of the whole enterprise of historical criticism.

Legaspi traced the history of historical criticism and its move from seeing the Bible as scripture to seeing the Bible as simply a text.

One step in this journey was the Reformation, in which there arose a question for the first time about which version of the Bible and which selection of Bible books was valid. Before the Reformation, the Vulgate was regarded as the word of God, with no need for translation of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Whose Bible? Whose doctrine? Whose practice? All things were now up in the air.

The death of scripture in the West was solidified in 18th century German universities. German universities were to create ideal citizens for the German state, preparing leaders well-rounded in philosophy, literature, and other academics. The theology departments were pushed to the lowest rank.

German theology departments were tasked with creating a critical, non-confessional Bible, so that the Bible was viewed as literature and not scripture. Israel was viewed as a classical society, like Rome or Greece, and not as the people of God. Part of the critical spirit was keeping religion under control, to combat fundamentalism and violence which resulted from it. Christianity and Islam needed healthy doubt, they alleged, so equalize and relativize ideas and to keep extremism at bay.

Legaspi concluded that academic criticism of the Bible is a failed project. It has not helped society. Its origins involve dubious ideas about knowledge, rejection of tradition, and fake objectivity.

**************Correction****************

Michael Legaspi emailed and noted that I had summarized him well with one exception. He did not feel historical criticism had completely failed. It had served its purpose in bringing about new discoveries. Rather, his point was that it will not serve the needs of religious communities today. Here is an excerpt in which he explains what he meant:

H-C was successful for a time, quite a long time in fact. My point was simply that it is no longer in a position to function as it once did. I don’t believe it is in an epistemological position inferior to that of confessional modes, i.e. regarding objectivity or tradition. But I believe that the discourse that it has framed is not a promising one for actual religious communities functioning now, in a post-Christian–not simply post-confessional–society.

******************************************

Further, our society is rapidly becoming post-Biblical, he said. Biblical studies must now change. Causing doubt and combatting fundamentalism, even if they ever were worthy goals, is not so much the issue in a post-Biblical society. Biblical scholarship should ask if it believes society needs the Bible and if so, decide how to communicate it positively.

I asked Legaspi for some recommendations for further reading and I will share with you three books he recommended:

(1) Hans Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative (a difficult classic I have not yet read).

(2) George Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine

(3) Jon Levenson, The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism

Paul, N.T. Wright, and What About MJ’s?

I am at the Society of Biblical Literature conference in New Orleans with about 8,000 scholars and students of Bible, theology, archaeology, and so on.

Last night, I asked N.T. Wright a question in front of 1,000 scholars.

For those unaware of N.T. Wright (how could you be?), he is perhaps the best-known theologian in the world. If you are having a television story on historical Jesus or Paul issues, you will most likely want to have N.T. Wright featured. His popular level books sell in high numbers (The Challenge of Jesus, Surprised by Hope, Justification, etc.). His trilogy (The NT and the People of God, Jesus and the Victory of God, and Resurrection and the Son of God) is core work to be reckoned with.

Wright gave a lecture and took questions on the subject of justification in the thought of Paul. The idea is how we are justified or made right in the sight of God. Since the room was full of scholars who have an awareness of traditions and schools of thought already, Wright mostly summarized how he came to his views.

He started with a view, in his evangelical youth, that he now recognizes as mostly Lutheran in character. The Jews in the Old Testament earned their way by law-keeping, it didn’t work, now God has given us plan B called grace. That’s pretty close to the way Wright described it.

The moral anarchy of the 1960’s led Wright to question a view of law that is so negative.

He then read Calvin and became converted to a more positive view of law. From Calvin he learned that God’s way with humanity is one way and not two or three or a series of dispensations. And law was given as a gift to those who were already redeemed, who had already walked through the water and had the promised land to look forward to. Law is for believers. Wright didn’t mention it, but the way this view works out in practice is that only the so-called moral laws of the Pentateuch apply today.

To make a long story short, Wright’s ideas became sharpened when he considered Romans 10:3, “Because they disregarded the righteousness from God and attempted to establish their own righteousness, they have not submitted to God’s righteousness.”

A thought occurred to Wright. The righteousness of their own is not fastidious law-keeping as Luther and others had assumed. It is the idea that Jewish identity in and of itself makes one righteous or acceptable to God. The problem with this idea is that Gentiles will never be able to be right with God unless they become, through circumcision and conversion, Jews.

Wright’s understanding now of justification, which falls into the category of the New Perspective on Paul (a category in which there is still variation, but which views Paul as a faithful Jew), includes the following:

(1) Being “in Christ” is more important for Paul than justification.

(2) Present justification is God’s announcement that currently he grants the verdict of innocence to all who believe.

(3) Future or final justification will be a judgment by works a la Romans 2:6-7 (the synoptic gospels also, 2 Corinthians 5, James, and many other places also).

(4) Paul’s great concern is for the total unity of the people of Messiah as one congregation.

I am with Wright on most of these points. The problem for me comes in how we apply the last one.

Wright has not thoroughly thought through some issues here. In his Anglican context it is easy for him to see a single community without distinctions perhaps.

But what about Jewish people who follow Yeshua.

So here was my question, “What about Messianic Jews? How do you see this working out for us who desire to be faithful to Torah and Christ so that our yes to Jesus is not a no to God?”

First, let me say that Wright was gracious and sensitive. He said that this issue calls for dialogue between Messianic Jews and Christians. He said the church has treated Messianic Jews badly, either as an embarrassment for those who see Jews as having their own covenant and path to God or as heterodox by those who denounce Torah observance.

Yet on a more disappointing note, Wright said that unity is too important for Paul for him to imagine a separate body of Messianic Jews in relation to the church. I say this is disappointing because Torah life is not possible without a community of shared values and Messianic Jews cannot give up connection to the broader Jewish world. A bilateral ecclesiology is necessary (the idea that the congregation of Messiah has two distinct parts: the Jewish and Gentile branches).

On an even more disappointing note, Wright said that even for Jews who follow Yeshua, we have to realize some of the Torah has been set aside. This is not because Torah was bad or insufficient, but that some measures were temporary due to the hardness of hearts. But Jesus, he said, has brought a cure for that hardness rendering such laws unnecessary.

I don’t think he thought this answer through carefully. It would be strange, for example, to argue that circumcision and Sabbath are now unnecessary since hearts are no longer hardened. Perhaps if we’d had more time, Wright could have clarified. Perhaps he views Sabbath and circumcision as still important for Jews who follow Yeshua. If so, I wonder if he has considered that Messianic Jews need their own community.

My point in sharing all this here is to say that Christian theology, in many places, is moving closer to a Torah-friendly view and away from supersessionism. I don’t think Wright has fully made the journey. Others have gone further. But he is trying and is sensitive to anti-Judaism in church theology. He did mention in his remarks that he agreed it is important for Messianic Jews to be faithful to God’s calling. I hope this indicates he is at least conflicted about what that should look like.

Meanwhile, the Old Perspective on Paul, which equates law-keeping with legalism, is shrinking, and this is a good thing.

Perhaps we are seeing in our days the beginning of the coming together of Christians and Jews. A relationship between faithful Jews and Christians must increase. Here at the Society of Biblical Literature, I am encouraged to see the interaction.

On My Way to SBL

That’s Society of Biblical Literature. The annual meeting is in New Orleans.

This is my first SBL. I think I am heading back into Hebrew Bible studies (my masters in 1998 from Emory was in this field) and with a concentration in Ezekiel.

There are a few hilarious papers. You have to understand thousands of papers are delivered at this conference and some are quite weird and many are very specialized and obscure.

My favorite weird ones:

(1) Lynn Huber, Elon University
What a Drag: How Queer Performance and Critique Can Contribute to Explorations of the Bible and Popular Culture

n the 2008 movie Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist an inebriated young woman calls her friend and proclaims, “I’ve found Jesus!” We see her look up, as she repeats, “Jesus! He’s much taller in person.” Standing next to her is an actor dressed as Jesus smoking a cigarette. We learn later that this Jesus is part of a holiday themed drag-show. Interestingly, the character dressed as the Son of God reads as male, perhaps alluding to the ambiguous gendering of Jesus in the biblical and Christian traditions. The drag Jesus, moreover, reminds us that drag, camp and other forms of queer performance and culture are often about more than entertainment for entertainment’s sake; rather, queer performance can be understood as a critique of dominant cultures, political, social, and religious, which inscribe heteronormativity and strict categories of gender and sexuality. In this vein, a drag Jesus might serve to challenge conservative Christian views of Jesus as a defender of “family values.” (A recent video featuring the actor Jack Black as a Jesus who challenges California’s Proposition 8 functioned similarly.) As a form of critique, the performances of queer culture often exist in tension with popular culture in general, critiquing the latter, while the latter seeks to embrace, constrain and commodify queer culture. In light of this messy relationship, this paper will highlight some of the ways that queer culture might contribute a critical and important voice to conversations about engaging the intersections between popular culture and the biblical texts and traditions.

(2) Tony Michael, York University
The Dark Knight as Prophetic Realism: A Minority Voice in American Super Hero Culture

Scholars Jewett & Lawrence argue that American civil religion is bifurcated by two contradictory traditions—zealous nationalism which seeks to redeem the world by the destruction of enemies and which dominates American behavior and prophetic realism which seeks to redeem the world for coexistence by the impartial enforcement of law. Recent big-budget films such as Superman Returns, Ironman and Spiderman perfectly demonstrate the dominant view as endemic to both narrative and character development whereas only The Dark Knight represents the minority tradition. This presentation will suggest that the minority voice can be seen in such a film in all of its parts (i.e., dialogue and visual). This apparent evidence of the Jewett & Lawrence position can be quite stunning.

Yeah! A little Batman Dark Knight mixing with Biblical studies. I’m sad I can’t see that one.

I am mostly looking forward to some Ezekiel papers, some papers on the Didache, some early Jewish-Christian relations research, and a session of papers on the Sabbath in early Judaism.

So watch out New Orleans, a collection of the world’s Bible scholars and students is about to descend.

PODCAST: Yeshua in Context – Kingdom of Heaven, Pt 5

In his book Surprised by Hope, British scholar N.T. Wright mentions an interesting misunderstanding about the meaning of Yeshua’s resurrection. It is an objection, really, made by some scholars to the popular understanding of this age, the Age to Come, and Yeshua’s resurrection. Wright paraphrases a complaint by John Dominic Crossan:

Even if Jesus did rise from the dead, so what? Very nice for him, but what has it got to do with anything else? Why should he be so specially favored? If God can pull off a stunt like that, why can’t he intervene and do a lot more useful things like stopping genocide or earthquakes?

It really is a good question to ask, though it sounds dangerous to speak critically of God or Yeshua or the Bible. But whether this question, put in so startling a form, has occurred to you before or not, it gets to the heart of the problem of faith.

Is there a point to believing in God and his kingdom? Why does it seem to make so little difference here and now? Is it all just a vague future hope which comforts us while we wait for it to hopefully appear?

LISTEN ONE OF TWO WAYS:

(1) If you have iTunes, search Yeshua in the iTunes store and subscribe.

(2) If you don’t use iTunes, go to this link at derekleman.com.

Why Study Theology?

A friend from the blogosphere emailed yesterday to ask a very personal question: “Why should anyone study theology?”

For my friend this is a personal question because she already has the bug. She loves reading and studying and writing.

But you have to admit, theology doesn’t land one a good job or build bridges or win wars. It’s so . . . theoretical. Maybe it’s just a selfish pastime for people who have too much curiosity.

If a family member questions you, “Why do you spend money and time studying this useless theory and how many angels fit on the head of a pin?” what will you say?

A lot of religious people are not convinced theology is very useful. And in many cases they are right. Many people study theology and do nothing useful with it. Some devotees of faith and worship are of the opinion that all we need is simple understanding and the Holy Spirit, they say, gives us all plenty. Others are more negative: if you study theology you will lose your faith.

I responded to the question this way: I study theology because knowing it enables me to help people.

The most real issues, the ones people thing about with cold dread at night, the ones that come to us lying on the hospital bed, are about God, afterlife, and whether there is meaning to it all.

Once, while on a business trip, I was in a bar with some colleagues. I had to go up to the bar to order a second round and overheard a group of half a dozen guys talking about the “Jesus tomb” which allegedly had just been found with bones in it proving Yeshua did not rise from the dead.

I said to them, “Hi, guys, I from Atlanta and I overheard your conversation. I am a student of theology from Atlanta. I know about this Jesus tomb thing. Would you guys like to hear more about it?”

The point of the story is only this: the fact that knew what I was talking about made them interested in hearing what I had to say. It’s akin to a discussion of politics and a history student walks into the conversation. Let’s all quit pretending we know anything and hear what the person who actually studies American history and sociology has to say.

People email me with questions. People call me with questions. Family and friends ask questions.

A lot of people wish they had someone to talk to from time to time about these things. And it would be nice if there were more people who studied theology.

I am skimming through a very bad book right now. It was written by some well-meaning, young, hip, emergent Christian types. They keep making statements about what this or that text means. They speak with a tone of authority. But it is patently obvious they have not wrestled with the background of the texts they are talking about. Their authority rings hollow.

Too much theological conversation is like that: the blind leading the blind.

You don’t have to be a pastor or rabbi to study theology. You have to put in time and work and keep reading and/or taking classes. You need mentors and friends who can discuss these things with you.

In Messianic Judaism we have a fairly new program (you have to be in the UMJC to fully participate, but you can take the coursework even if you are not in the UMJC) called the Madrikh program. It is about raising up more teachers and guides in our movement.

I told someone the other day that they should pursue ordination as a rabbi. This will involve about six years of hard work and study. My friend wondered, “Why would I do that?” He was thinking maybe he would not lead a congregation so why be a rabbi. He has a good job already.

I told him that at the biggest Orthodox synagogue here in Atlanta there are more than forty rabbis. Most of them do not get paid even part-time by the synagogue. But people do come to them with questions. They are leaders in the community. They are part of the reason this synagogue touches so many lives. Who wouldn’t want to belong to a place with so many teachers?

Why shouldn’t Messianic Judaism have thousands of Madrikhim, Madrikhot, and rabbis? If you are not Messianic Jewish, why shouldn’t your community have more theologians and teachers?

Of course, studying theology will mean a struggle. I don’t know anyone who has studied theology and not had their faith shaken at times. You can’t really wrestle with ideas and not be uncomfortable at times with the possibilities.

I have sometimes wanted to have part of my memory erased or have the divine chariot come down with the answers to the questions I am considering. The turmoil now and then has been difficult. I have walked with colleagues at conferences and told them I was struggling. I have seen my calm assurance shattered on many issues and become stronger for it. I would never say the gains were not worth the tears and fears.

Why study theology? Well, there are two reasons really. The first is like the Jewish doctrine of Torah lishma (Torah for its own sake) or the Christian doctrine of lecto divina (divine reading). The reading and the journey is a form of worship. I am with God even when I am studying the archaeological signs of Israel’s early history or the geographical issues of the Patriarchal narratives. I suppose even thinking about how many angels fit on the head of a pin can bring me closer to God in the process of study and reading.

The second is that it helps people. I see that all the time. I admire doctors. Doctors can’t help in some areas that I can, just as I can’t help in areas where a doctor is needed. Life and death are ultimately divine issues and our control over them is frighteningly small.

And the people I admire, the prophets and dreamers and apostles who brought the Biblical texts to us, they thought deeply about theology. They wrestled with death and disappointment and delayed promise. They were not simple preachers. Yeshua most likely could read and he knew the texts and traditions. Paul was a Harvard grad, eminently received wherever he went. Isaiah, Ezekiel, and the unknown authors of much of the wisdom literature impress me as geniuses. Moses and the final editors of the Torah are amazing literary artists.

So I say, if you are foolishly brave enough to study theology, do it and never stop.

Ezekiel 1:1-3, Under God’s Coercion

I’m only started on the road of studying the prophet Ezekiel, a book which will likely be my area of concentration in Hebrew Bible studies (some possible doctoral work in a few years).

With a little preparatory reading under my belt, I sat down to Ezekiel 1:1-3 today (literally sat in a camping chair under a giant oak tree in front of a sprawling green landscape at a local park). Even in the first few verses issues of mysticism, ecstatic prophecy, and divine control versus human free will came up. Ezekiel is a wild book.

I noted certain phrases. נפתחו השמים “and were opened up the heavens.” אראה מראות אלהים “I saw a divine vision” (with Greenberg taking Elohim as an adjective and mar’ot as a plural of generalization). היה דבר–יי “came the word of Hashem.” ותהי עליו שם יד–יי “and came upon him the hand of Hashem.”

Heavens opening. Divine visions. The arrival of a word from Hashem. The pressing hand of Hashem on the prophet. The book of Ezekiel is dramatic and Ezekiel is not like many other prophets.

Ezekiel and God’s Coercion
Ezekiel is not like the other writing prophets. In some ways he seems more like Elijah and Elisha as well as the other early prophets who were compelled and whose prophecies came with force even pressing against their own wills.

What was it like to be a vessel of prophecy? There are so many different ways people think of prophecy. Some see the oracles of prophets as clever or forceful poems invented by the prophets. Others see the oracles as God-dictated words channeled through the prophet against the will. Everything in between has been suggested.

Moshe Greenberg (Anchor Bible: Ezekiel) notes that the other literary prophets, such as Isaiah and Jeremiah, did not use the language of compulsion about the way prophecies came to them. Only Ezekiel did.

Daniel Block (New International Commentary on the Old Testament: Ezekiel) notes that formulas expressing divine coercion are common in Ezekiel. The hand of Hashem compels him seven times, sometimes moving him from place to place. The Spirit of Hashem lifts him to his feet and falls on him. Many lesser expressions fill the book such as “took me out,” “brought me,” “led me,” etc. Block see the hand of Hashem language as a divine pressure exerted on the prophet.

One suggestion has been that Ezekiel felt an inner compulsion and referred to it as Hashem’s hand. But we must be open to the idea that God would exert such pressure directly and in such a way that no one would confuse such an experience with self-compulsion. To deny the possibility of the latter is an indefensible refusal to accept the possibility of the supernatural. The question is not about possibilities, but likelihood. Is it likely that God exerted pressure on the will of an individual prophet? What would that feel like?

Two Types of Prophets
Some have overdone the distinction, but it does seem there are two categories of prophets in the Bible. The early prophets, mentioned in Samuel and Kings, were characterized at times by ecstatic trances, schools in which they trained to be prophets, and wild acts of prophetic zeal. The later prophets, especially the literary prophets, rarely use this kind of language (except Ezekiel). Their words come in visions and similar communication with little or no evidence of a trance or ecstatic state.

Some people have claimed 1 Samuel 9:9 as a basis for a sharp distinction between a prophet and a seer. Seers, allegedly, are the more ecstatic type.

Elijah and Elisha are the early prophets par excellence. The hand of Hashem came on Elijah in 1 Kings 18:46 and he ran faster than the chariots of Ahab for many miles! Elisha was the father figure to a school of prophets.

What does it all mean? Is the prophet-gift something that can be learned? Does it involve trances and ecstatic states? Does it mean losing one’s own will in the Divine will?

Abraham Joshua Heschel on Ecstatic Prophecy
In his book The Prophets (1962, JPS), Heschel addresses the theory of ecstatic prophecy. He details ideas about psychology, orgiastic and ecstatic groups in the ancient world, studies of Israelite prophecy, and so on.

He notes that the ecstatic theory of prophecy is an attempt to understand prophecy in naturalistic terms. Prophecy becomes drunkenness, or the orgiastic experiential cults of history such as Dionysus.

In challenge to ecstasy as the mode of prophecy, Heshcel offers these counterpoints:

(1) In the time between Moses and Amos, “no sign of ecstasy is reported” in the “leading prophetic figures” (Vol. 2, p.134).

(2) Isaiah disparages alcoholic ecstasy as a woe, not a legitimate form of communion with God (Isa. 19:14; 5:11, 22; see Heschel, Vol. 2, p.135).

(3) The Israelite prophets do not, as pagan prophets, seek to merge with God. The line between man and God is uncrossable for Israelites. This is noted by strong language of God’s holiness and transcendence. (ibid., 137).

(4) The personalities of the prophets are not extinguished. They complain, resist, and even change God’s decree about things (ibid., 137-8).

(5) Other than some early prophets who are anonymous, there is no talk of preparing a trance to receive a vision (ibid., 138).

(6) The prophets do not emphasize the indescribable as in ecstatic visions, but put in words what they see and receive (ibid., 140-1).

(7) Israelite prophets share their message communally, not seeking a personal experience for its own sake (ibid., 142).

(8) Israelite prophets speak about real issues, not theories of spiritual existence (ibid., 144).

(9) Israelite prophets do not speak merely of abstract, non-material reality, but present God as actively engaged in history (ibid., 144-5).

(10) Israelite prophets do not tap into impersonal magical forces, but receive from a personal God (ibid., 145-6).

What Then of Trances and Schools?
I think Heschel has laid to rest the idea of trance-inducing, frenzied prophets in Israel. Yet we do know that in some places and times, especially early in Israel’s history, there were trances and schools.

My thought about this is that it is yet another example of God revealing himself even in and through movements with limited understanding. There were schools of prophets, people who sought to enter a trance-like state and become vessels of a divine word. And in some times and places, God gave that word and honored those schools. There is no indication that Elijah and Elisha rebuked these well-meaning disciples.

But we should note that trances, frenzy, and disassociation of mind and body did not become the norm in Israel. Those movements died out.

What Then, About Ezekiel?
Although Ezekiel was in some ways compelled and coerced, the characteristics of his prophecies fit well with Heshcel’s observations listed above. The reasons for God’s heavy hand on Ezekiel are not to be found in theories about schools of prophets seeking oracular experiences and visions.

Theories, to be explored later, include the idea that Ezekiel may have been unwilling as a prophet or perhaps something else. Perhaps being in Babylon, so far removed from the land of Israel, a kind of prophecy more wild and zealous was called for.

To be considered and pondered . . .

Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary

What sort of Bible reference materials do you have in your home?

As with many rabbis and pastors, I am a shameless collector of books on Biblical studies and theology. Many of the books in my library are more for the specialist, though a non-specialist could certainly enjoy some of them. They involve detailed studies of detailed topics. There is not a widespread need for Bible students to have a book on the history of methods for studying the Hebrew Bible or a book on literary approaches to interpretation.

But sometimes a new reference book becomes available that I think could benefit any library.

Jewish and Christian Ideas About Reading
I take it as a general truth that in both Judaism and Christianity, too few people read and study Biblical texts. Part of the reason this is true is that many people find these texts, though they’d be pained to admit it, either boring and pedestrian or obscure and difficult. Another reason might be that too few religious communities really encourage Bible reading. Let the professional do it. The people shouldn’t think too hard.

I appreciate in the Jewish tradition the idea of Torah lishma, “Torah for its own sake,” or “Torah for the sake of the Name.” The simplest definition of this concept is, “Read the Torah because it is God’s will.” In this tradition you read as a discipline or habit. You do not read to gain status as a scholar or looking to get something for yourself. You read out of faithfulness and in this way you actually get more for yourself, a lifetime of learning. And the whole thing is not motivated by a desire to find nuggets of inspiration in every reading. You will read whether you find those or not.

I appreciate in the Christian tradition something similar, lecto divina, which is very similar to Torah lishma. Lecto divina, or Divine reading, is about reading the text slowly, prayerfully, and meditating on God’s presence in our interaction with the words. You might call it reading with faith and prayer.

I believe that reading and studying God’s Torah (instruction, it can mean all of the Biblical literature) is the missing ingredient in most contemporary religion. This might see an inadequate diagnosis. You might say, “But love and living the ways of God is more important.” However, in my experience, it is reading and study that ultimately leads most people, not all, to living and doing. (I could write a blog about the tragedy of those who read and study for the wrong reasons and therefore do not produce deeds from their study).

The Kinds of Tools Every Reader Can Use
If you read the Bible much, you will find you need some tools and references.

There are some who disdain references and commentaries. They accept unquestioningly the dubious notion that the meaning of the Bible is plain and self-evident. There are some doctrines in some corners of Christianity that seem to be saying this (the perspicuity of scripture, the priesthood of all believers, the illumination of the Holy Spirit, etc.), but closer examination of these Christian ideas will reveal that they do not mean what many think they mean (note that the Reformers of Protestantism were scholars who used more reference materials than most modern pastors).

The first tool every reader needs is a search tool. You are going to want to find things you have read before. Where is that thing about the mustard seed or about Jacob wrestling an angel (or God)? For this, you will want a computer Bible program. And there are many available. You can also do searched online on various online Bibles. You can search phrases and not just words.

The second tool every reader needs is some way to compare translations. Again, a computer Bible is the best and easiest way to do this. Jewish translations such as the JPS (or New JPS or NJPS) and Christian translations such as (in the order of my preference): RSV, ESV, NET, NRSV, and NIV should be consulted regularly.

The third tool, often overlooked, is reference material about people, places, and background. A good Bible dictionary (not Smith’s or Easton’s or one of the free ones on computer Bibles). For most people I could recommend the New Bible Dictionary or the New International Bible Dictionary. I now have something new to recommend in this category, which I will describe below, which will complement and take a reader light years beyond what is in a Bible dictionary.

The fourth tool is a good commentary on a given book of the Bible. This is a subject deserving its own series of blog posts. Commentaries are hit and miss. Many are not worth the paper used to print them on. And most Bible readers only buy the kind that are next to useless. There are several types of commentaries I find useful, including rabbinic commentaries and academic commentaries. I need to blog about commentaries in the future.

A New Reference Work of Immensely Useful Proportions
Okay, disclosure time. Zondervan sent me the set I am about to discuss for free. It arrived in Friday’s mail and is hot off the press. I am a bit peaved that Scot McKnight got his copy earlier than me (blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed). But I was thrilled when the rather heavy box came with all five colorful volumes of the Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary, edited by a former professor of mine, John Walton of Wheaton University.

But although I got this set for free, let me say at $157.47 on amazon.com, this set is a bargain. Every page is full color. There are no pages of just text. Every page has sidebars, charts, and most importantly images of artifacts and places relevant to the Biblical text. And this is a five-volume set with each volume running in excess of 500 color pages.

Apparently the New Testament set came out in 2002, though somehow I did not know about it ($100.79 on amazon). But the set on the Hebrew Bible was just released.

The ZIBBC puts at your fingertips, for any passage of the Bible, information about dates, things going on in the nations around Israel, photos of artifacts, maps, charts, and explanations about the customs and history behind the Biblical story.

For example, I am looking at the pages related to this week’s Torah reading (Genesis 25:19 – 28:9). The Biblical story is about the birth of Esau and Jacob, the selling of the birthright, the confirmation of the covenant with Isaac, troubles with Abimelech, Esau’s unfortunate marriages, the stolen blessing, Jacob fleeing to Haran, and Esau’s poignant attempt too late to ingratiate himself to his father.

At quick glance, I see in the ZIBBC a photo of a standing stone (a la Genesis 28), a map showing the route of Jacob to Haran, a picture of Nuzi tablets illustrating customs such as inheritance rights, and a picture of a ziggurat illustrating the context of Jacob’s ladder vision.

A quick skimming of the text shows me the ZIBBC on this passage discusses:
–What it meant in ancient Mesopotamia to inquire of a deity.
–Ancient beliefs about names and their significance.
–An explanation of primogeniture and birthright issues.
–An explanation about Abimelech as a Philistine king before Philistines existed.
–The meaning of patriarchal blessings in nomadic clans.
–Information about Jacob’s ladder vision in the terms and ideas of his time.

The ZIBBC gives the reader the kind of information that is usually not found in commentaries, or which is mentioned with too little information to give a sense of the history and background behind the Biblical story.

The kind of information this puts in the hands of Bible readers is bound to mature understanding. The primary obstacle in understanding the Bible is the distance in time and customs between them and us. The ZIBBC gives you quick, easy to read, illustrated information.

I will be blogging often about the ZIBBC, sharing with readers highlights and information from each of the Biblical books.

Searching for Rebekah

Ah, the Rebekah story. Abraham has his servant put his hand under his thigh and swear (it wasn’t his thigh that the servant was to take hold of — get it?). Rashi has an interesting note about that if you look it up.

The servant swears a solemn oath not to let Abraham’s son, Isaac, marry one of the local Canaanites. Instead, he is to travel to Haran and find a wife from Abraham’s clan there.

Why not a Canaanite? Why is it better to find a wife from the wandering Arameans who are Abraham’s relations?

If you’ve ever heard a message about the Rebekah story being about godly romance, how to find a God-fearing wife, forget it.

Abraham’s kin were not righteous monotheists. See Joshua 24:2, for example, where it notes that Abraham’s family served other gods. Note Genesis 31:34 in which Rachel brings a family idol with her when fleeing Laban.

Rather, Abraham believed God’s promise about who his descendants would become. All the families of the earth would be blessed through Abraham’s descendants (12:3) and would come to his descendants to find blessing (22:18, a subtle difference in the verb). His line is the elect people of God, the redemptive people on the earth, the salt of the earth.

The danger in marrying a Canaanite in Abraham’s time was not paganism (though it would be the issue later in Deuteronomy 7:3-4 for the Israelites hundreds of years later).

The danger was assimilation. If Isaac married into the local populace, Abraham knew the distinct character of his line would be lost. In a generation or two no one would realize they were descendants of Abraham, the elect people of God.

The search for Rebekah is the search for continuation.

Eliezer, servant of Abraham, is trusted with finding a wife who will help Abraham’s line remain distinct. He and his family can only be sojourners in the land until the time that God gifts it to his descendants. Remaining distinct is vital. It is the only way to pass the covenant promises down to the children and further generations.

Where is the concern for passing down the faith and covenant promises in our day?

Jews and Christians, both communities, are failing at this.

Jews intermarry, which could be fine, and then compound the problem by not working through the issues.

Christians are assimilating into the marriage-less, family-doesn’t-matter-so-much culture of America.

Jews and Christians live together before marriage. And intimacy cheaply earned is cheaply thrown away. Couples don’t stay together. Children rarely get two parents. Check the statistics. I am not exaggerating. And Jews and especially Christians are playing right into the death of the family.

But God says the families of the earth, yes families, will be blessed in Abraham’s seed.

Intermarrieds should ask themselves: how will we raise our children in the faith of the Christian spouse and the Torah life of the Jewish spouse? Alternately, how can the Christian spouse recover faith in Jesus and the Jewish spouse recover a connection to Torah and the people of Israel and then pass it on to the children?

Good, sound Messianic synagogues are the greatest and most unknown resource intermarried families have.

And we need to search for Rebekah. We need for Jewish and Christian families to recover that sense of covenant continuity.

The surest way to continue Christian faith is to marry a Christian and raise your children as Christians. Check the statistics. I am not making this up. Broken homes and shuffling the kids to custody swaps make the job far harder.

The only way to pass on Jewish covenant faithfulness is for a home to remain Jewish in character and quality. Intermarried families can achieve this. Messianic Jewish synagogues can help.

How sad then, that many Jewish men and women who turn to faith in Jesus abandon Jewish life. How sad that those who believe the Bible think Jesus-faith renders Jewish faithfulness obsolete. Churched Jews should not kid themselves. Their children and grandchildren will not identify as Jews. Churched Jews are shrinking Israel, diminishing Abraham’s seed, and working against God.

But the good news is that Rebekah is not so hard to find as people think. She is right there in the past, in the ancient traditions, in the way of faithfulness and continuing the line. She’s worth walking all the way back to Haran for.

PODCAST: Yeshua in Context – Kingdom of Heaven, Pt 4

One thing about Yeshua in his context, and it is still true two thousand years later in our own, is that he challenges conventional thinking. He makes the comfortable uncomfortable and encourages the uneasy and overlooked people. He disavows greatness as most people would think of it and comes down harshly on his disciples when they talk about using their intimacy with him as a means to glorify themselves. He speaks with biting censure to the religious and powerful but is shockingly lenient in relating to sinners and outcasts. He proclaims a soon end to mighty religious structures and is at the same time profoundly respectful of what those structures represent.

For some people Yeshua was disconcerting. He didn’t respect the things that surely were respectable. He criticized the uncriticizable.

For other people Yeshua was an irresistible hope in a hard and weary time of life. Crowds followed him. People walked miles and set aside important work to be with him.

Yeshua said the kingdom of God was at hand, nearby, ready to be revealed. Life was about to be turned upside down. Much that was straight would be bent and much that was crooked would be straightened. The unexpected would happen and not so much the expected. Values would be turned on their heads and new values emerge. Family and kinship structures would change. Ideas of power would be transcended by a greater reality. Suffering would end. The self-assured had reason to fear but the downtrodden could see hopes realized. Kingship was not going to be like that in Rome. The kingdom was something new and different, challenging every paradigm.

LISTEN ONE OF TWO WAYS:

(1) If you have iTunes, search Yeshua in the iTunes store and subscribe.

(2) If you don’t use iTunes, go to this link at derekleman.com.

Guest Blog in English, French, and German by Tiqun

Some time back I discovered and befriended a Messianic Jewish blogger from Switzerland, a mother of young children and a good and thoughtful writer to boot. I immediately recognized that her work is important not least because I am sure the world needs to hear good Messianic Jewish thoughts in French and German. If you know French or German readers, please point them to her blogs.

As I am not yet sure if she wishes her real name to be used, I will simply call her Tiqun, the name she uses when commenting on Messianic Jewish Musings. The following post is about Shalom Bayit, the Jewish concept of peace in the home.

You can find her blog in English at http://wehalachta.wordpress.com/

In French at http://weamarta.wordpress.com/

In German at http://weahavta.wordpress.com/

Tiqun’s Musings on Shalom Bayit in Three Languages

My home, my castle sanctuary.

« … and write them on the door-frames of your house and on your gates. » (Devarim 6:9, CJB)

Generally, it is known that Judaism is more oriented towards the holiness of time, rather than the holiness of place (just read Heschel’s beautiful work on the Sabbath!). There are many times, many occasions that we sanctify, but there are only very few places. Yet there is one very special exception to that: the Jewish home which is sanctified through the mitzvah of the mezuzah, which is a biblical commandment fond in Devarim 6 (Deuteronomy 6).

But makes a home Jewish? Is it merely the fact that mezuzot are affixed to the door-posts? I dare say no. The Jewish home is created by those who live within it – by their actions, their speech, their beliefs, the things they think, the things they do or don’t do.

Community is very important, but the base, the stronghold of the community has always been, and is, the home. The home is more than just some walls and a roof, more than just a place where we can eat and sleep, watch tv and read.

The Jewish home is called a miqdash me’at, a small sanctuary. The first sanctuary that the Israelites had was the tabernacle in the desert. God had commanded in Exodus 25:8 that the people build the sanctuary for him, so that He could dwell amongst them. The word for “amongst them”, בתוכם betocham, can also be translated as “in them”. This means that God does not literally dwell in the sanctuary, but amongst the people of Israel. Thus, the Sages have explained that this means that God dwells in the heart of every Jewish man and woman, and thus, each person is sacred and the home in which they dwell is also sacred.

After the sanctuary of the desert, the Jewish people had the temple in Jerusalem, and after its destruction, the home became designated as the small sanctuary, being not only the place where people lived, but also a place for special purposes such as Torah study, prayer or sometimes also a place of assembly. If you have ever been in a Jewish home, you will have surely remarked that books are a part of the furniture, and prayers and blessings are being recited all throughout the day, from getting up to going to sleep. The dinner table of the family replaced the altar, and as such, eating together is more than merely ingesting food. As such, the home is the first place not only for physical nourishment, but also for spiritual nourishment where children and adults learn together about values and godly behavior, and ideally study Torah and pray together – and have healthy doses of joy and fun as well!

Another important part of the Jewish home is the shalom bayit, peace and harmony in the home. It is at home where we are most tempted to lose our temper, to let go. Whereas at home we can be ourselves, without our masks, we should strive for peace and right relationships and respect among generations. This peace will then overflow into our relations outside the home: at work, with strangers, or in our communities. The Talmud warns about the danger of strife within the home (“Anger in the home is like worms in grain” Sotah 3b, “A home where there is dissension will not stand” Derekh Eretz Zutah 9:12).

Shalom. Peace. Peace is essential. Yeshua himself said “blessed are the peacemakers”, and Paul warned “For the whole of the Torah is summed up in this sentence: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’, but if you go on snapping at each other and tearing each other to pieces, watch out, or you will be destroyed by each other!” (Galatians 5:14-15 CJB).

These admonitions are valuable for the community of believers, but also for the home – our lives and homes should be imitating the Prince of Peace, and the Sabbath peace should permeate the whole rest of the week. In such a home, guests will not only be welcomed, but feel welcome. Hospitality in such a home is a fundamental Jewish value, a great virtue that is mentioned both in the Tanakh as well as by Paul, and the Babylonian Talmud stresses the greatness of hospitality which is one of several important virtues (Shabbat 127a: There are six things, the fruit of which man eats in this world, while the principal remains for him for the world to come: Hospitality to wayfarers, visiting the sick, meditation in prayer, early attendance at the Beth Hamidrash, rearing one’s sons to the study of the Torah, and judging one’s neighbor in the scale of merit.).

Thus the Jewish home is truly a small Sanctuary. Like the Temple, it is a center for Torah, prayer and kindness and there, the Divine Presence dwells – in the home, and also in those who inhabit it. The idea that God dwells in those that inhabit such a home can be be found in the Torah, but also in the New Testament where it is stated that the body of the believer in Yeshua is a temple for the Holy Spirit.

God pours blessings into the home, from which they spread to the world, shared through warm hospitality and acts of goodness and kindness. And not only the home and the believer are a sanctuary, but our God himself is our sanctuary, one that is with us wherever we go: “Therefore, say that Adonai ELOHIM says this: ‘True, I removed them far away among the nations, and scattered them among the countries; nevertheless, I have been a little sanctuary for them in the countries to which they have gone” (Ezechiel 11:16, CJB).
……………………………………………………………

“Tu les écriras sur les montants de la porte et aux portes de tes villes.” (Dt 6,9 NBS)

Généralement, il est connu que le judaïsme est plus orienté vers la sanctification du temps, plutôt que celle de l’espace (il suffit de lire la très belle œuvre de Heschel sur le Shabbat pour s’en rendre compte). Il y a de nombreux temps que nous sanctifions, mais très rarement c’est des endroits. Mais comme pour toute les règles, il y a une exception très spéciale aussi ici: le foyer juif, qui est sanctifié par la mitzvah de la mezuzah, qui est un commandement biblique se trouvant en Dt. 6.

Mais qu’est-ce qui rend un foyer juif? Est-ce le seul fait d’avoir des mezuzot? J’ose dire que non. Le foyer juif est crée par ceux qui vivent dedans – par leurs actions, leur langage, leur croyances et leur foi, leurs pensées, les choses qu’ils font ou ne font pas.

La communauté est très importante, mais la base de la communauté a toujours été -et l’est toujours- le foyer, la famille. Un foyer, c’est plus que juste quatre murs et un toit, plus qu’un endroit où l’on mange et dort.

Le foyer juif est appelé un miqdash me’at, un petit sanctuaire. Le premier sanctuaire qu’avaient les Israélites était le tabernacle dans le désert. Dieu leur avait commandé en Ex. 25,8 de construire ce sanctuaire pour lui, afin qu’il puisse demeurer au milieu d’eux. Le mot utilisé pour dire « au milieu d’eux », בתוכם betocham, peut aussi être traduit par “en eux”. Cela signifie que Dieu n’habite pas littéralement le sanctuaire, mais habite parmi le peuple d’Israël. Ainsi, les Sages ont expliqué qui Dieu demeure dans le cœur de chaque Juif, femme et homme, et qu’ainsi, chaque personne est sanctifiée tout comme le foyer qu’elle habite.

Après le sanctuaire du désert, le peuple Juif avait le temple de Jérusalem, et après sa destruction, c’est foyer qui était désigné comme le « petit sanctuaire », n’étant pas seulement la place où l’on vit, mais un endroit pour des activités telles que l’étude de la Torah, la prière, ou encore des rassemblements. Si vous avez déjà été dans un foyer juif, vous aurez certainement remarqué que des livres (et souvent beaucoup) font presque partie des meubles, et que des prières et bénédictions sont récités tout au long de la journée, du lever jusqu’au coucher. La table autour duquel la famille se ressemble remplace l’autel du Temple et ainsi, manger ensemble devient plus que simplement se nourrir. Le foyer est donc le premier endroit non seulement pour la nourriture physique, mais aussi pour la nourriture spirituelle où enfants et adultes apprennent ensemble les valeurs de la Torah, et idéalement étudient et prient ensemble – sans oublier le bon temps et les rires!

Quelque chose d’autre qui est d’une grande importance pour le foyer juif et la paix de la maison, le shalom bayit. C’est à la maison que nous sommes le plus tentés de nous laisser nous emporter. Tandis qu’à la maison, nous pouvons être nous-mêmes, sans nos masques, nous devrions aussi chercher la paix et les justes relations ainsi que le respect entre générations à la maison, chez nous. Cette paix va alors, pour ainsi dire, « déborder » dans nos relations en dehors de notre foyer: au travail, avec des inconnus, ou dans nos communautés. Le Talmud met en garde contre les dangers des dissensions dans le foyer (« La colère dans le foyer est comme les vers dans le grain » Sotah 3b, « Un foyer avec dissensions ne perdurera pas » Derekh Eretz Zutah 9:12).

Shalom. Paix. La paix est essentielle. Yeshua lui-même a dit « heureux les artisans de paix », et Paul a aussi a émis des mises en garde « Car toute la loi est accomplie dans une seule parole, celle-ci: Tu aimeras ton prochain comme toi-même. Mais si vous vous mordez, si vous vous dévorez les uns les autres, prenez garde de ne pas être détruits les uns par les autres » (Gal. 5, 14-15, NBS). ces mises en garde sont valables pour la communauté, mais aussi pour le foyer – nos vie et nos foyers devraient être des reflets du Prince de la Paix, et la paix du Shabbat devrait remplir la semaine entière. Dans un tel foyer, des visiteurs ne seront pas seulement accueillies, mais se sentiront vraiment bienvenue. L’hospitalité est une valeur juive fondamentale, une grande vertu mentionné dans le Tanach (L’Ancien Testament pour les chrétiens) et le Nouveau Testament, et le Talmud babylonien stresse l’importance de l’hospitalité en étant une de certaines vertus très importantes (Shabbat 127a: Il y a six vertues desquelles l’homme mangera le fruit dans ce monde, tandis que le principal reste le monde à venir: l’hospitalité pour les voyageurs, visiter les malades, la contemplation dans la prière, être tôt au Bet Midrash, elever ses fils dans l’étude de la Torah, et de juger ses voisins selon ses mérites).

Ainsi, le foyer juif est réellement un petit sanctuaire. Comme le temple, il est un centre pour l’étude de la Torah, la prière et la bonté et là, la présence divine est présente – dans le foyer, et dans ceux qui l’habitent. L’idée que Dieu habite dans ceux qui habitent un tel foyer peut être trouvé dans la Torah, mais aussi dans le Nouveau Testament où l’on peut lire que le corps du croyant est le temple du Saint-Esprit.

Dieu déverse ses bénédictions dans ce foyer, de où ils vont s’étendre dans le monde, partage à travers l’hospitalité et des actes de bonté et de compassion. Et non seulement le croyant et son foyer sont un sanctuaire, mais notre Dieu lui-même est notre sanctuaire qui va avec nous partout où nous sommes: « A cause de cela, dis: ainsi parle le Seigneur DIEU: même si je les ai dispersés dans tous les pays, j’ai été pour eux, un petit sanctuaire dans les pays où ils sont venus » (Ez. 11,16 NBS).
…………………………………………

« … und Du sollst sie auf die Türpfosten deines Hauses schreiben und an deine Tore. » (5. Mose 6,9)

Es ist in der Regel allgemein bekannt, dass das Judentum eine Religion ist, die die Zeit heiligt, und nicht so sehr den Raum (dazu z.B. Heschel’s Werk über den Sabbat). Es gibt viele Zeiten, die geheiligt werden, aber nur sehr wenige Orte. Aber wie mit allen Regeln gibt es auch hier eine besondere Ausnahme: das Heim, welches durch die Mitzwah der Mezuzah geheiligt wird – ein biblisches Gebot, das man in 5. Mose 6 finden kann.

Aber was macht ein Heim jüdisch? Ist es nur die Mezuzah? Ich wage dies zu bezweifeln. Das jüdische Heim entsteht durch die, die darin leben – durch ihre Taten, ihr Reden, ihr Glaube, die Dinge die sie denken und die Dinge die sie tun oder nicht tun.

Gemeinschaft, Gemeinde ist sehr wichtig, aber die Basis, sozusagen die „Festung“ der Gemeischaft (oder der Gemeinde) war immer das Heim. Ein Heim ist mehr als nur vier Wände und ein Dach, mehr als nur der Ort an dem man isst und schläft, etwas Fernsehen schaut und vielleicht etwas liest.

Das jüdische Heim wird auch miqdash me’at, „kleines Heiligtum“ genannt. Das erste Heiligtum, dass die Israeliten in der Wüste hatten, war die Stiftshütte. Gott hatte in Ex. 25,8 dem Volk geboten, dass sie ihm die Stiftshütte, das Zelt der Begegnung, bauen, auf dass Er „unter ihnen wohne“. Dieses „unter ihnen wohnen“, hebräisch בתוכם betocham, kann man auch mit « in ihnen wohnen » übersetzen. Das bedeutet, dass Gott nicht irgendwie physisch in diesem Heiligtum wohnt, but im Volke Israel. Daher haben die Weisen erklärt, dass Gott im Herzen einer jeden jüdischen Frau und eines jeden jüdischen Mannes wohnt und daher, ist jede solche Person und das Heim in dem sie wohnt, geheiligt.

Nach dem Zelt der Begegnung hatten die Israeliten dem Tempel in Jerusalem und nach dessen Zerstörung wurde das Heim „kleines Heiligtum“ gennant; das Heim war (und ist) nicht nur der Ort, an dem gelebt wird, sondern auch ein Ort für Tätigkeiten wie das Torah-Studium, Gebet und Gemeinschaft. Wenn sie jemals in einem jdischen Heim gewesen sind, haben sie sicher gemerkt dass es dort meisst viele Bücher gibt, und auch von morgens bis abends Gebete und Segenssprüche gesprochen werden. Der Esstisch ersetzt den Altar, und so wird das Essen zu mehr als nur dem zu-sich-nehmen von Speisen. So wird das eim nicht nur zu einem Ort, an dem man sich ernaährt, sondern auch einem Ort, an dem man geistlich genährt wird. Idaelerweise lernen und beten dort Kinder und Erwachsene zusammen – ohne natürlich auch den Spass und die freude zu vergessen!

Ein anderer wichtiger Aspekt eines jüdischen Heims ist auch der Friede, der shalom bayit. Zu Hause kommen wir am leichtesten in Versuchung, uns gehen zu lassen. Natürlich können und sollen wir zu Hause ganz wir selbst sein, ohne unsere Masken, doch sollte auch hier dem Frieden nachgejagt werden, soll es wichtig sein in rechten und ge-rechten Beziehungen zu leben und einander Respekt zeigen, auch zwischen den Generationen. Dieser Friede wird dann von unserem Heim in Beziehungen ausserhalb des Heimesfliessen: auf der Arbeit, mit Fremden, in der Gemeinde. Der Talmud warnt vor Unfrieden und Zwistigkeiten im Heim („Ärger im Heim ist wie Würmer im Getreide“ Sotah 3b, „Ein Heim voller Unmut wird nicht bestehen“ Derekh Eretz Zutah 9,12).

Shalom. Frieden. Frieden ist essentiell. Yeshua (Jesus) selbst sagte „selig, die Frieden stiften“, und Paulus warnte evenfalls in Gal. 5, 14-15 „Denn das ganze Gestz hat seine Erfüllung in einem Wort gefunden: Liebe deinen Nächsten wie dich selbst! Wenn ihr einander aber beissen und fressen wollt, dann seht zu, dass ihr euch nicht gegenseitig verschlingt!“ Dieser rat gilt für die Gemeinde, aber auch für das Heim – unser Heim sollte ein Abbild des Friedenfürsten sein, und der Frieden des Sabbats sollte die ganze Woche durchdringen. In einem solchen Heim wären Gäste nicht nur willkommen, sondern würden sich wirklich zu Hause fühlen. Gastfreundschaft gehört mit zu den wichtigsten jüdischen Werten, ein Wert der im Tanakh („Altes Testament“ für die Christen) und im Neuen Testament hoch geschätzt wird, und auch im babylonischen Talmud hervorgehoben wird (Sabbat 127a: Es gibt sechs Dinge dessen Frucht der Mensch in dieser Welt essen wird, [auch] wenn das wichtigste in der kommenden Welt kommen wird: Gastfruendschaft gegenüber Reisenden, die Kranken zu besuchen, Gebet, früh im Bet HaMidrash zu sein, seine Söhne nach der Torah zu erziehen, und seinen Nächsten nach seinen Leistungen zu bewerten).

So ist das jüdische Heim wirklich ein kleines Heiligtum. Wie der Temple ist ein Ort der Torah, des Gebets und der Freundlichkeit und dort ist Gott gegenwärtig – im Heim und denen, die dort wohnen. Die Idee, dass Gott in den Gläubigen wohnt, gibt es nicht nur in der Torah, sondern auch im Neuen Testament, in dem geschrieben steht, dass der Körper des Gläubigen der Tempel des heiligen Geistes ist.

Gott giesst seinen Segen in ein solches Heim, und von dort „läuft er über“ in die Welt, durch warmherzige Gastfreunschaft und Akte der Liebe und des Mitgefühls. Und nicht nur Heim und Gläubige sind Heiligtümer, sondern Gott selbst ist unser Heiligtum, wo auch immer wir sind: „Darum sprich: So spricht Gott der HERR: Obwohl ich sie weit fort unter die Nationen gebracht habe, und obwohl ich sie in die Länder zerstreut habe, bin ich ihnen zu einem kleinen Heiligtum geworden in den Ländern, in die sie gekommen sind“ (Hes. 11, 16).

Love Actually . . .

People have told me a dozen time at least that I should watch the 2003 movie “Love Actually.” Last night I did.

Only once in a while a movie doesn’t just entertain you but rather knocks you over.

(Beware if you’ll be bothered by a few scenes of raunchy comedy including nudity).

My favorite of all the stories is the one about the English writer on holiday after the breakup of his marriage and the Portuguese cleaning woman. They can’t talk to each other. And they eventually begin conversing with each other each in their own language, knowing the other can’t decipher the words. But the audience knows that their words align remarkably, like two people who think in similar ways.

And they speak words of love that go unheard because language separates them. He drives her home after every workday. He says in English words she does not comprehend, “It is the time I look forward to most every day.” And she says in Portuguese that he cannot apprehend, “The hardest part of every day is leaving you.”

There are many other moments like that in the film, giving us unique windows on a few dozen individuals. The situations of love discovered, love lost, love longed for but not to be had, love ruined, love confused with sex, boredom with sex and longing for love, and love triumphing are worth seeing and learning from.

The premise at the beginning of the movie is worthy of reflection though slightly flawed. The narrator (I might need to watch again as I wonder if the narrator was one of the characters) says that he hears all over the place that the world has gone bad. But he doesn’t believe it. And when needs to restore his faith in life he goes to Heathrow Airport and watches the arrivals. Scenes of families receiving loved ones at the airport play in the background while he talks. A great diversity of people hug, show on their faces the emotions of affection and joy.

The narrator says he doesn’t believe the bad news about the world. It’s because he sees love actually all around.

The point is well-taken. Love is actually all around. Then why is the world bad? Presumably the movie was to make us think about this very question. The narrator may say that the arrivals at Heathrow dispel the darkness for him, but we know that though families love each other, though travelers are received with warmth at airport terminals, and though men and women fall in love, we still can’t translate our love for close ones to love for humanity.

Love is not only many-splendored, it is also elusive and an impenetrable mystery.

Love crosses the boundary between me and you. But how much of you can I understand? I can never enter your mind, possess your soul, or grasp your emotions for myself. The I and the you are always separated. Buber called it the I and the Thou and proposed a certain philosophy of knowing the other.

Buber said, “The world is not comprehensible, but it is embraceable: through the embracing of one of its beings.”

Yet somehow our love for a close friend, for a spouse, a child, or a greatly desired object of romance does not translate to universal love or world peace.

It’s something to think about when we see families reunited at airport terminals or a father walking in a parking lot holding the hand of his little girl.

Yeshua spoke about our imperfect love, our all-too-limited love. He said what we are lacking is the kind of love God has.

Perhaps in “Love Actually” that is represented in a small way by the woman who desperately loves a co-worker, but cannot give in to that love. She cannot give in because a mentally ill brother needs her constantly. He calls her with no regard for her schedule to complain and just to hear her voice. He tries sometimes to strike her. But he needs her.

And she loves him unconditionally. She accepts her own inability to find love because she must give her all-consuming love to a brother who only sometimes shows love in return.

And so, Yeshua said, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,” for this is the kind of love God has for the unlovely. “If you love those who love you, what reward have you?” Yeshua asks. Even the most selfish people on earth love a few people close to them. “Be perfect,” in love is what Yeshua means. Let love translate beyond the airport arrivals and holiday gatherings. Find a way to love the other, the unknown, the enemy.

Love actually is what we need. And the thing about Yeshua’s words is that he really lived them.

Is a History of Ancient Israel Possible? Pt 1

Is it possible to speak of the ancient history of Israel?

I frequently encourage my congregation not to watch television documentaries about the Bible and history. Their mission is entertainment and controversy, not education.

But through internet, television, and other forms of information overload, it is hard to miss the fact that many people in positions of academic credibility dismiss the history of the Bible to varying extents.

Is it just me or is skepticism and conspiracy theory always at some kind of advantage, as if we are all too willing to be deflated by an expert telling us our great hopes and beliefs are wrong?

Don’t worry. Hang around academia long and academics lose the sparkly luster. The academic world rewards innovation and controversy in a manner not too far removed from the entertainment world. Don’t get me wrong, I read and benefit from academic research in history, Biblical interpretation, and theology. But on any topic I read about, I have learned I can find academic writers taking opposing sides and holding to every shade of variation in between.

Maybe when it come to the Bible and history, we are afraid the skeptics are right. Maybe we worry that scholars who are favorable to Biblical history are fudging their scholarship with faith. Maybe we have been soaked for so long in the idea that “science” is objective and “religion” is subjective that we fear to dig too deeply and find Jerusalem missing.

In a short series, I want to say a few things about the reality of ancient Israel and the history we read in the Bible. I will begin with a few thoughts about the most extreme book in opposition to Biblical history.

There Was no Israel: Keith Whitelam

You’d think there never really was an Israel if you believe the well-known 1997 book by Keith Whitelam, The Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian History. Yes, the book claims the Palestinians are victims of . . . the Bible (essentially), or at least victims of Euro-centric scholars taking the history depicted in the Bible too much at face value.

Here is a bit of the product description from amazon:

A controversial and provocative work, The Invention of Ancient Israel chronicles how the true history of ancient Palestine has been obscured. Keith W. Whitelam reveals how ancient Israel has been invented by scholars in the image of a European nation state; one that resembles the state of Israel created in 1948.

Keith Whitelam is a professor at the University of Sheffield in the U.K. The University of Sheffield has recently been criticized by Ben Witherington as a place where faith is deconstructed (see here in a Christianity Today article). Some say the criticism is unfair. Some lament the secularization of U.K. universities. I do not know the truth, but Keith Whitelam’s post as head of Biblical Studies there makes me wonder: a Biblical studies department headed by someone who doesn’t believe ancient Israel existed?

I find it very unfortunate that anyone would believe what Whitelam believes and even more so that his work is teaching Biblical studies at a university.

In future posts I will say more about evidence outside of the Bible for ancient Israel in history. I wrote a few weeks ago about “Finding Early Israel” in a two-part series for those interested. See here for part 1 and here for part 2.

For now, let me simply allow the wise words of one amazon reviewer who calls out Whitelam for special pleading and suppression of evidence:

In this book, which purports to take politics out of the history of ancient Israel, there is no room for archaeology–no room for the collared-rim jars the ancient Israelites left behind, no mention the four-room houses at ‘Izbet Sartah and, of course, none of Merneptah Stele, the ancient tablet (dated at 1212 BCE) which is also the first discovered recorded non-biblical reference to a people and a nation called Israel.

Meanwhile, I admit I have not read Whitelam’s book. I may read it at a local seminary library and comment more specifically on it in the future. But his ideas serve as a good start to a series on the history behind our faith.

How does history work? How can we know the past? How much uncertainty is there? Is skepticism superior to a general reliance on tradition? Did writers from the modern period (before postmodernism) exhibit an arrogant view of knowledge?

Can we say with the Psalmist, “O Jerusalem, if I forget you, may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth”?

Subversive Sequels, Chapter 1

Disclosure statement: I did not receive any compensation from JPS for this review, but I did get a nice free book!

Note: I’m told the FCC has a new rule requiring bloggers to disclose any compensation when offering a review online.
…………………………………………………

Subversive Sequels in the Bible: How Biblical Stories Mine and Undermine Each Other
Judy Klitsner. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2009.

Judy Klitsner teaches Bible in Jerusalem at the Pardes Institute, a non-denominational Jewish school. She reads the Bible with a sensitivity to feminist issues.

I was immediately interested in her book because inner Biblical interpretation is an area I want to read up in. In my coming research in Ezekiel, I believe the interaction in Ezekiel with earlier texts will be a key element. That is also why I will soon be tackling Michael Fishbane’s Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel.

Subversive sequels is a look at a series of pairs of Biblical texts in which Klitsner believes the later text deliberately undermines some of the ideas in the earlier text. Chapter 1 is of particular interest to me as Klitsner takes on Jonah as a subversive sequel to the Noah story.

Before considering the many parallels and possible interactions between Jonah and Noah, a key question is whether the Jonah story was written deliberately to comment on the Noah story. Klitsner’s study is literary and she does not address the issue of Jonah and history. Are we to understand Jonah as a fictional character and the book of Jonah as a parable? This is a leading interpretation in critical commentaries. Or was there a Jonah son of Amittai (2 Kings 14:25)?

All of that said, the parallels between the Noah story and the Jonah story do call for consideration:

(1) Noah sent a dove (Hebrew, yonah) to see if the flood was ended; Jonah is, of course Yonah.

(2) God flooded the world because of hamas (violence, injustice); in Jonah, the Ninevites repented of their hamas and turned away from it.

(3) Noah and Jonah’s stories both involve boats, sea journeys, and water-induced catastrophe (even though Nineveh is nowhere near the sea).

(4) The Noah story is about judgment without mercy; the Jonah story is about mercy over judgment.

(5) Noah ends his career in self-induced slumber and drunken self-destruction; Jonah begins his quest sleeping in the hold of the ship, then asking to be drowned in the sea, and at the end praying for God to take his life.

(6) Noah is ambivalent about the destruction of the world while God is unrelenting; in Jonah, God wants to save the wicked, but Jonah is unwilling.

Klitsner says:

As we will see, the book of Jonah serves as a subversive sequel to the story of Noah. The Jonah narrative adopts much of the Noah story’s language and many of its themes to invite comparison. But then the second story begins to dismantle and revise the first, questioning many of its basic assumptions about the prophet, about God, and about the doomed population. To begin with, the Book of Jonah will ask whether Jonah, with all his similarities to Noah, will be able to rewrite his story. Perhaps this time the prophet will adopt a more generous attitude toward others, and by extension, toward himself. In addition, the sequel will question God’s behavior, asking whether God might eschew the strict justice of Noah’s Flood in favor of a more forgiving attitude toward humanity.

Many of Klitsner’s insights are powerful and revealing. Sometimes her exposition lacks credibility. For example, she rightly notes the Hebrew pun involved in the sentence, “And Noah found favor in God’s eyes.” Noah is two letters in Hebrew: nun and chet. Favor is two letters: chet and nun. NoaKH found KHeN in God’s eyes. Yet Klitsner stretches the point with a non-sequitur: “[This] hints that the hoped for impact Noah was to have on the world is replaced by the much more limited, personal impression he makes on God.”

In other words, the purpose of the pun in Hebrew is to show that Noah is a disappointment. His father had hoped for much from him in 5:29, saying his name was to be Noah because maybe he would bring comfort to the world (comfort is from the same root as Noah). But Klitsner feels the reader is supposed to notice that Noah is instead a disappointment since he only found favor (khen) in God’s eyes. Never mind that the pun could be there to highlight the positive: that one Noah did receive favor from God in an age when the world was completely wicked.

However, for every strained exposition, Klitsner brings a dozen compelling ones. In fact, the theme of Noah as a disappointment was one I had never considered. Here is a summary of Kiltsner’s case:

(1) In 5:29, Lamech hoped his son, Noah, would bring comfort (Hebrew root, n-h-m) from the curse placed on humankind in the garden.

(2) In 6:6, using the same root word as comfort this time in a different meaning (regret), God turns Lamech’s hope on its ear: “The Lord regretted (Hebrew root, n-h-m) that he had made humanity on the earth.”

(3) Noah never asks God to spare more people in contrast to Abraham in Genesis 18 who tries to get Sodom and Gomorrah spared or given more time to repent (Klitsner notes that the rabbis had long made this comparison between Abraham and Noah to show that Abraham was more righteous).

(4) After the flood, Noah is apparently depressed. He builds a vineyard and gets drunk and is found lying unconscious and naked in his tent.

(5) The drunken episode leads to a curse, not a blessing, and the story records Noah’s death immediately after, though chronologically he did not die for some time.

Klitsner comments:

There is irony in the “man of the earth” planting something as inessential as grapes in the aftermath of the world’s destruction, instead of a more basic crop such as wheat. But his actions highlight his desperation to escape his unbearable reality, to simulate death by living in self-induced unconsciousness. The next logical step, his actual death, is recorded immediately afterwards, despite the fact that it occurs many years later. . . . God had wanted to spare the prophet from the Flood, but in a sense Noah, like all those around him, drowns. It is not God, but Noah who extinguishes his own breath of life by inundating his body with liquid.

While I would quibble with Klitsner that vineyards were every bit as vital in agriculture as wheat, nonetheless I confess to elation in the insight she finally comes to. Of all the stories of Noah’s life the narrator could have included, why the drunken episode? It not only explains the curse on the descendants of Canaan, but more than that, it shows Noah drowning in the aftermath of the world’s destruction. Perhaps he did feel some sense of failure for not trying to save more people. Or perhaps he was lonely and despondent in a world now containing only one family.

With careful attention to word-motifs and evidence for deliberate parallels, Klitsner brings this kind of close scrutiny also to the Jonah story. The prophet Jonah begins sick with failure and ready for death. Im his story, God wants to save the wicked and he wants them to die. Klitsner notes that his father’s name, Amittai, is from the root for truth. Is Jonah unrelentingly dedicated top truth above compassion?

The Noah story begins with the silence of the prophet. Noah does not ask God to save more people. The Jonah story ends with silence. God asks if he should not have compassion on the people and animals of Nineveh. But Jonah has nothing to say in answer to God.

Klitsner’s exploration of subversive sequels achieves what I consider to be the primary achievement of a good book on Biblical studies. She helps the reader to see the texts in new ways. Her expositions are not without fault, but at least in this opening chapter, she brings light to the mysteries of God’s judgment and mercy. My own theology differs a bit from hers, not being as willing to find fault with God in the Flood account. I would say that context was different between the Flood and Nineveh and that the Judge of all the earth does right. In fact, the repentance of Ninevah, if you believe Jonah is based on real events, was temporary and did not save them. In the end, the Assyrians like the generation of the flood, paid the price for their hamas and went down in history as a defeated empire and a despised people.

You can see more about Subversive Sequels in the Bible here or on amazon.

PODCAST: Yeshua in Context – Kingdom of Heaven, Pt 3

In part 1, we considered one of the largest associations Yeshua’s hearers would have had with the phrase “kingdom of heaven” or “kingdom of God.” That is the return of a kingship like David’s, a golden age for Israel under the right shepherd blessed by God.

In part 2, we considered the words of Israel’s psalmists and prophets about the great changes in the world when the rule of God overtakes the rule of man. We talked about Israel regathered, a paradise of singing and dancing, agricultural wonders, and God dwelling on earth in Jerusalem.

Now in the third part of our look at ideas about the kingdom of heaven, I want to look to the gospels and examine the many examples of people in Yeshua’s time thinking about and talking about the kingdom. Did people then think more than people do in our generation about the sudden and radical changes in the world that God would bring? Did they expect something drastic to happen? Were they looking for a Messiah? Were they looking for immediate changes to start at an unknown time?

LISTEN ONE OF TWO WAYS:

(1) If you have iTunes, search Yeshua in the iTunes store and subscribe.

(2) If you don’t use iTunes, go to this link at derekleman.com.