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.

Recent Books on Biblical Interpretation

I’ve read a number of interesting books about how to interpret the Bible recently. Most recently I spent an intense few weeks in Kenton Sparks’ God’s Word in Human Words. I have a review which will appear in the May 2010 issue of Kesher Theological Journal (see Kesher online here).

Sparks’ book was one of the more negative books about the Bible I have read. I am not reviewing it on the blog since I agreed to do so for a journal. But I can say a few things about the book. Sparks wants to hold on to the authority of the Bible and at the same time accept the results of critical study of the Bible. I share the goal, but it seems to me that along the way Sparks lost his way. I appreciate another take I read recently, in Provan, Long, and Longman’s A Biblical History of Israel. They talk about reading tradition optimistically, giving it a benefit of the doubt. Sparks, it seems to me, has not done this. In his book, any time the Bible could be wrong, he assumes it is.

Readers unfamiliar with critical Biblical scholarship would be shocked to read Sparks’ views on many topics. In fact, many critical scholars take a more tradition-friendly tack than Sparks did. Results of his scrutiny of the Bible include:

–The Pentateuch is an anthology conflicting theologies from Israel’s different periods and schools and should not be read as a unity (p. 218ff).
–Samuel-Kings is theological-historical fiction embellishing an unknowable legendary core (p. 202).
–The Chronicler invents episodes to affirm the doctrine of reward and retribution in this life (pp. 221-2).
–Daniel’s “failed prophecies” are a genre of apocalyptic meant to communicate God’s control but not be taken seriously as prophecy (pp.223-4).
–John’s gospel uses invented chronology to strengthen the theological theme of Yeshua as Passover lamb (pp. 222-3).

Perhaps the worst example of negativity in Sparks’ book is his handling of the Canaanite genocide issue. God commanded Israel to expel and/or exterminate the Canaanites from the land. Sparks claims this is nothing more than the bigotry of the Ancient Near East and yet it is somehow included and accommodated into the Bible (pp. 297-298).

Needless to say, my review of Sparks will be about what I think he missed, theologically speaking, as he sought to deal with a constructive view of the Bible (one that integrates faith and critical reading).

Another recent book: Blue Parakeet
By contrast, I read and reviewed on Messianic Jewish Musings Scot McKnight’s Blue Parakeet. I so appreciated two principles for reading the Bible which McKnight not only expounded, but also illustrated with examples.

First, he said we need to read the Bible as story. Much of the Bible is, literally, narrative. And the non-narrative parts can be read as part of the ongoing story. This may seem a simple principle, but you can easily get confused since various traditions have not read the Bible as story. McKnight lists other methods including the following:

–Morsels of law: the way of reading the Bible that sees it as a rulebook and rather without consideration for context or development within the Bible isolates rules here and there. Fallacies abound in this approach.
–Morsels of promise: same thing, but with promises instead of rules.
–”Puzzling together the pieces to map God’s mind”: turning the Bible into a system of coded clues which all fit into one grand theory of theology. This method fails to recognize that the Bible includes varying viewpoints on the multi-faceted complexity of life and faith. Sometimes the Bible even seems to be contradictory as it expands our view of the multivalent reality of life (look up multivalent–it is a good word).
–Reading for the maestros: McKnight’s term for people who focus on one or two personalities in the Bible and read all through the lens of their words. Paul is the maestro of evangelicalism, for example, and would never approve of the way the rest of the Bible is shelved in evangelical churches (every time I bring this up, people deny it–but if you attend such a church pay attention to the way even other Bible texts have to in the end get vetted by Paul).

Second, I appreciate the way McKnight pushes Bible readers to see it as a developing story, or a wiki. Just as a wiki (an internet phenomenon–look it up if you don’t know what I mean) is updated and renewed by later writers, so it is with the Bible. The Bible is constantly in conversation with itself. Later parts look back on earlier parts and reexamine and tweak what was said earlier.

You can read my earlier review of Blue Parakeet here.

Speaking of Wiki: Subversive Sequels
If McKnight clued us in to the wiki nature of inner Biblical conversation (later parts referring back to earlier parts and expanding or even undermining what was said earlier), Judy Klitsner takes the task further, exploring in depth some of the relationships between two or more parts of the Bible that are in conversation.

Klitsner’s new book, which JPS was kind enough to send me as a review copy (note: FCC, I disclosed that I got a free book–new rules in case readers didn’t know), Subversive Sequels in the Bible: How Biblical Stories Mine and Undermine Each Other will be the subject for a soon-coming review on Messianic Jewish Musings.

Klitsner’s topic is the way certain ideas taken up in older Biblical passages are then recast in a new light in later Biblical passages. One that I am most interested in is the comparison between Noah and Jonah. If you think about it, you should be going, “Ahhh, I see it now.” One is God judging the world and saving one man. The other is God sending a man to save a city from judgment and the man doesn’t want them to be saved. Hmmm. Can Klitsner persuade that the connection is deliberate? Is it a reflection in the inner Biblical conversation about the nature of God’s judgment and of his mercy?

I will enjoy soaking it all up. But most of all, I keep reading and rereading the supreme text itself: the Bible. The rich spiritual and intellectual insights come slowly but surely. I believe in Torah lish’ma, Torah for its own sake. It is the idea that the very process of reading and studying the Bible enriches us, whether we get some deep insight or not.

Israel and Messiah’s Return

I have been having dialogue with a number of people who feel that Israel’s part in God’s healing of the world is done. Messiah came from Israel and since that time, Israel’s part is finished. Israel to some is the failed people of God.

The following is an excerpt from my book The World to Come which you can see here on amazon.com.

This excerpt assumes a number of things about how to interpret the Israelite prophets and how the time periods fit together. For a full explanation, I refer you to the book.
……………………………………………………………..

Israel and the Age to Come
Virtually all of the promises of the age to come occur in Israel and with Israel as the central player. Again, we might assume that this was due to the audience’s limitation in understanding. Jewish prophets spoke about future Israel because Israel was being addressed. On the other hand, as I have said before, it may be that we need to orient ourselves to the Bible’s perspective rather than translating it to our own.

When Yeshua returns, it will be to Israel. When Yeshua returns, the specific event that draws him will be Israel’s need for rescue in a gruesome war commonly known as Armageddon. “Then Adonai will go out and fight against those nations, fighting as on a day of battle,” and “his feet will stand on the Mt. of Olives” (Zech 14:3-4).

Consider the basic plot of the end of this age and the beginning of the age to come. You can see more detail and a more complete list of prophecies in “Appendix A: Scripture Compendium.” For the moment, I simply want to introduce the drama and quote biblical language about the World to Come:

Israel will be drawn back into the land: “He will return and gather you from all the peoples to which Adonai your God scattered you. If one of yours was scattered to the far end of the sky, Adonai your God will gather you even from there; he will go there and get you” (Deut 30:3-4).

Armies from the nations will attack Israel: “I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle” (Zech 14:2).

God will trap these armies, luring them to attack Israel: “I will gather all the nations and bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat [Adonai judges]” (Joel 3:2, see also 9-16).

God will destroy those armies and rescue Israel: “Swing the sickle, for the harvest is ripe; come, and tread, for the winepress is full. The vats are overflowing, for their wickedness is great” (Joel 3:13).

Yeshua himself will be Israel’s deliverer: “For I tell you, from now on, you will not see me again until you say, `Blessed is he who comes in the name of Adonai’” (Matt 23:39).

God will restore the tribal lands in Israel: “These are the borders of the land you are to distribute for inheritance by the twelve tribes of Israel” (Ezek 47:13).

Jerusalem will become the center of the world: “It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of Adonai shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be lifted up above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it” (Isa 2:2).

The Torah will be given to the nations: “Many peoples shall come, and say: ‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of Adonai, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.’ For out of Zion shall go the law, and the word of Adonai from Jerusalem” (Isa 2:3).

Non-Jews will attach themselves to Jews in order to find God: “When that time comes, ten men will take hold – speaking all the languages of the nations – will grab hold of the cloak of a Jew and say, “We want to go with you, because we have heard that God is with you’” (Zech 8:23).

Nations will be included with Israel as God’s people: “In that day Israel will be the third with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth, whom Adonai of hosts has blessed, saying, “Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel my inheritance” (Isa 19:24-25).

The hearts of Israel will be made new, circumcised, and filled with Torah: “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit inside you; I will take the stony heart out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my Spirit inside you and cause you to live by my laws, respect my rulings and obey them” (Ezek 36:26-27, see also Deut 30:6 and Jer 31:33).

A river of life will flow from the Temple in Jerusalem to the Dead Sea, which will become alive: “On both riverbanks will grow all kinds of trees for food; their leaves will not dry up, nor will their fruit fail. There will be a different kind of fruit each month, because the water flows from the sanctuary, so that this fruit will be edible, and the leaves will have healing properties” (Ezek 47:12).

Messiah Yeshua will rule from David’s throne in Jerusalem: “Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore” (Isa 9:7).

There will be sacrifices and priests serving in God’s Temple: “The Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings, and to make sacrifices forever” (Jer 33:18).

God will dwell with Israel forever: “Son of man, this is the place of my throne and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the people of Israel forever” (Ezek 43:7).

Un-Ordinary Beliefs

I get a regular stream of emails with questions about something someone read on Messianic Jewish Musings. Sometimes these come from regular readers and sometimes from people who ran across something on a google search. The questioners often are surprised by something they read here. It is not from the paradigm of theology they are used to. And they wonder what I believe about this or that or how I would defend my views.

Toward the end of creating a place for people to understand Messianic Jewish theology the way I see it, I am creating this post with a summary of certain big points in my theology. These are not chosen for being the most important or as a comprehensive list. They are chosen as the sort of un-ordinary beliefs, the ideas most likely to catch a person from a Christian or Jewish paradigm by surprise. I know that un-ordinary is not a word in regular use. But I didn’t want to say “strange beliefs” on the one hand or “extraordinary beliefs” on the other. And “out of the ordinary” might have worked, but it too didn’t quite capture it for me.

This post is just a summary of some key un-ordinary beliefs. I am not attempting here to give evidence for any of them, though I will say a little in order to explain and at least show that there is some reason for a person to consider them.

I welcome responses to any and all of them. Which ones do you have trouble affirming? Which ones do you adamantly disagree with? As always, my request is that we keep the dialogue respectful.

Jewish people have a covenantal responsibility to the Torah of Moses. This covenantal obligation is not somehow erased through faith in Messiah Yeshua. Jews do not leave Jewish life or Torah faithfulness at the door upon setting out to follow Yeshua. The Law-free statements in Paul are not addressed to Jews in the congregation of Messiah. Acts 15 questions a non-Jew’s relationship to Torah but assumes that for Jews in Yeshua, Torah is the way of life. Christians who doubt Messianic Jewish obligation to Torah should consider Acts 21:24 and should also ask, “Why would following a Jewish Messiah lead to Jewish rejection of the way of life God revealed to Israel and called permanent for all generations?” As Mark Kinzer has famously pointed out: The historic Jewish “no” to Jesus has been a “yes” to God. In other words: Christians have sought to convert Jews to Christianity, asking them to leave behind the commandments God gave to Israel. Presented with this false requirement, no wonder most Jews have not taken Jesus seriously. This conversion gospel makes no sense and it divides God. But this is not to say we believe in the continuing covenantal obligation of Jewish people to Torah because it is pragmatic. We believe in commandedness, the sacred obligation of all people to obey God in that which he commands them. His commandments are not burdensome, the apostles tell us, but are filled with love.

The Torah includes sign commandments that distinguish Israel as the priestly nation. Circumcision, dietary law, Sabbath, the wearing of fringes, and a few more commandments are not universal matters of righteousness, but identity markers for the chosen nation. Noah was not commanded to circumcise and neither was his diet restricted (except for eating blood and meat strangled to preserve the blood in it). Rather, Noah was uncircumcised (in spite of a midrashic tradition to the contrary) and allowed to eat all living things (even pigs). Neither did the apostles mandate circumcision for non-Jews in Messiah or restrict their diet beyond the blood prohibition. Acts 15 indicates that the sign commandments of Torah do not obligate non-Jews. Some interpreters try to use Acts 15:21 as a text to reverse the meaning of Acts 15 (as if the non-Jews in Messiah would slowly start keeping Torah), but this reading of Acts 15 is only a way of controverting the apostles. Further, the Torah itself evidences a distinction in God’s requirement for Israel and the nations (Exod 31:13; Gen 17:10; Lev 12:3; Deut 14:21; Num 15:38). These commandments were never given to the righteous of the nations.

The apostles recognize two distinct branches in the congregation of Messiah. Peter and James led the way in the mission to the Jewish people and Paul, Barnabas, and others led the mission to the Gentiles. The Jerusalem congregation prayed at the Temple, kept Sabbath, and was characterized by zeal for the Torah according to Acts. The congregations in the diaspora (outside Israel) looked to the Jerusalem congregation as the mother. James, not Peter, presided over the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 because James was the leader of the Jerusalem congregation. The Jewish Yeshua-followers remained a part of synagogue life in the diaspora and at first the Gentile Yeshua-believers did as well. Yet Paul’s letters evidence the formation of congregations outside the synagogue which were for the Gentiles and which were Law-free (by Law-free I mean not bound to the sign commandments of Torah–I don’t mean they were libertines). Paul distinguished Jews and Gentiles (Rom 11:17-21) and did not erase distinction. Much of the difficulty in recognizing this distinction between the Jewish and Gentile wing of the congregation of Messiah is because much of it was assumed by the apostles. They would never advocate Jews in Messiah abandoning Torah and this realization is the unspoken assumption behind Acts and the epistles. In spite of the lack of clarity on this matter, a number of Christian and Jewish scholars have arrived at such a theological position as detailed in Mark Kinzer’s Postmissionary Messianic Judaism.

Israel’s election as the chosen people of God is not replaced by the church’s election. There are many kinds and forms of supersessionism (replacement theology). The common form is Christianity assuming that Israel has forfeited her place and the church has stepped in. Incautious readings of Yeshua’s parables and Paul’s epistles have furthered this sad movement in history. Yet Paul’s statements in Romans and particularly in Romans 11 ought to make clear that Israel has not been cast off. The seed of Abraham remains the nation of God and redemption continues to work through Israel and will culminate with Israel. Another kind of supersessionism has risen in the recent Torah movements loosely associated with Messianic Judaism (Hebrew Roots, One Law, Two House) and involve non-Jews assuming Israel’s place as the Torah-keeping people and equating themselves with Israel on the basis of phrases in the New Testament such as “grafted in” and “commonwealth of Israel.” Israel in the flesh resists its own election (as Michael Wyschogrod poignantly observes) but cannot rid itself of this covenantal connection with God. Christianity too often disdains Israel, but as Markus Barth has gracefully observed, “no Gentile can have communion with Christ or with God unless he also has communion with Israel.” Yet for many Christians, that communion with Israel is unrecognized. The God of Jesus is the God of Israel and there is no other God. And God’s curse remains on those who dishonor Israel (Gen 12:3).

Messianic Jews are both “the Church in Israel” and “Israel in the Church.” This form of expression is found in Karl Barth, a theologian whose works I do not read but who has coined some useful terminology here (Church Dogmatics II.2, 235, 273; see Kinzer p. 176). As the “Church in Israel,” Messianic Jews represent Yeshua and the renewal only he can bring to the Jewish people. Messianic Jews are Messiah’s leaven amongst the chosen people. As “Israel in the Church,” Messianic Jews represent the link between Christians and Jews. The very existence of Messianic Jews is vital to the Church’s claim that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. The relationship between Messianic Jews and Israel is of one character and between Messianic Jews and the Church is of another character. There is solidarity with both. Messianic Jews must not remove themselves from Judaism and the Jewish people. But Messianic Jews must also maintain relations with Christianity as brothers and sisters in Messiah. A Messianic Judaism that is anti-Judaism is false and in danger of denying God’s work amongst the chosen people not only in the past and future, but also in the present. A Messianic Judaism that is anti-Christianity is equally false and in danger of denying God’s work amongst the nations. There is a lack of holiness and health in all forms of Judaism and Christianity, but God does not reject either and so we must not reject what God loves.

The renewal of Israel (the Jewish people) will come only in and through Yeshua. A Messianic Judaism which downplays Yeshua is anathema. Messianic Judaism represents the people within Israel who recognize and serve the Messiah of Israel as the only redeemer and healer sent by God to restore Israel and heal the world. If we deny him before men he will deny us before the Father. Our commitment to the way of Yeshua must show in our actions so that our words will be heard. It is insufficient to evangelize. We must be the people of Yeshua. We must reflect the values of Yeshua as Jews keeping the covenant and working for the healing of the world.

Sabbath Meditation: Abraham’s Election by God

Michael Wyschogrod, a modern Orthodox scholar, wrote the following in 1961 for a conference in which various thinkers were asked to write a Jewish affirmation. This excerpt from Wyschogrod’s affirmation is a fitting meditation for this week as the Torah portion is Lech Lecha (Genesis 12-17):

Judaism means to me the election of the seed of Abraham as the nation of God, the imposition upon this people of a series of commandments which express God’s will for the conduct of his people and the endless struggle by this people against this election, with the most disastrous consequences to itself as well as the rest of mankind. In spite of all this, the Divine election remains unaffected because it is an unconditional one, but subject to revocation. Lest all this sound inexcusably arrogant, I can only say that indeed it would be, were it the self-election of a people. As it is, it is a sign of God’s absolute sovereignty which is not bound by human conceptions of fairness. Israel’s election has meant that this people must observe a code of conduct far more difficult than that of any other people and that, when it does not live up to its election, it is visited by punishments so terrible that no human justice could ever warrant them.

PODCAST: Yeshua in Context – Kingdom of Heaven, Pt 2

We’re in the second part of a series considering what Yeshua’s hearers would have thought when they heard about the kingdom of God or the kingdom of heaven.

The relationship of first century Jewish men and women to the scriptures was a bit different from the way people, even religious people, in our time think of the Torah or the Bible. Theirs was an oral culture. Many people did not read. Even though Roman prosperity and Jewish concern for holy writings may have increased literacy, still for most people reading and writing was not a regular practice.

But the words of scripture were heard and discussed. And images and ideas floated around. They took on various shapes and were powerful stimulants for the imagination.

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.

Finding Early Israel, Pt 2

In the November/December issue of Biblical Archaeology Review (a magazine I encourage you to subscribe to and read), Avraham Faust writes about evidence in the archaeological record for early Israel.

What is the big deal, some of you might ask, I thought the Bible showed us the origin of Israel and that is all we need.

I would say that finding history in stones and clay pots is important alongside the Bible for a number of reasons. Two in particular are helping people believe that the Biblical story is true and helping those who already believe in the Biblical story to understand in more depth what life was like and how the history unfolded. The Bible is a very incomplete account and the stones do help us flesh out the picture.

In recent years the world has been bombarded in mass media with skepticism. I wonder how many people are unwilling to seriously consider the Bible because of people like Israel Finkelstein or, worse, minimalists like Lemche, Davies, Thompson, and Whitelam, whose ideas make for good controversy on television documentaries about Israelite history.

Many people whose research will include only watching a special on the History Channel think that archaeology proves the Biblical story to be a legend with very little truth behind it.

A Pharaoh Writes About Israel
Avraham Faust, associate professor at Bar-Ilan University and author of Israel’s Ethnogenesis (see it here on amazon), applies a slightly different methodology than other researchers such as Finkelstein. Faust works backwards from cultural artifacts found in later layers in Israel that are widely recognized as Israelite. He looks at cultural differences that would help differentiate Israelite settlements from Canaanite and Philistine areas. Working backwards from the known, he searches out evidence in earlier layers to see if Israel was there too.

But at the beginning of his article, he starts with one strong early evidence for Israel: the Merneptah stele.

Pharaoh Shoshenq in about 1210 B.C.E. commissioned a stone record in hieroglyphics of his achievements. One of his bragging points was defeating in battle a people he calls Israel. Faust notes, as have others, that the Merneptah stele includes a marker identifying Israel as a people as opposed to a town or place.

We should expect that any theory of locating early Israelites in archaeological digs should explain how Israel could be mentioned so early in Egyptian records. We will come back to the stele as we follow Faust in his working backwards through history.

Working Backwards from the Known to the Unknown
Faust’s starting point is Iron Age II (1000 – 586 B.C.E.). Most archaeologists grant that material remains from this period have been rightly identified as Israelite. The few who don’t admit this are so politically motivated against finding any evidence of early Israel, their views can be discounted fairly easily.

Here is what Faust is looking for: material clues that identify Israel as living with different cultural norms than surrounding peoples such as Canaanites and Philistines. Using these cultural markers, Faust hopes to be able to work back through earlier layers (Iron Age I and then Late Bronze) to find evidence for Israel.

Philistines, Decorated Pottery, Circumcision, and Pork
In Iron Age II layers, it is easy to observe that some settlements used plain pottery and some used decorated pottery. Some settlements evidence extensive use of pork in the food supply and others the absence of pork. In late Iron Age I, pork made up as much as 20% of the Philistine diet. This trend decreases in Iron Age II, but differentiation is still possible. Similarly decorated pottery (see photo with this post) fades out in Iron Age II.

Faust sees a cultural trend. Israelites sought to differentiate themselves from the Philistines. Avoiding pork became quite important as a cultural marker. And the use of simple, undecorated pottery also was an Israelite distinctive.

Right around the transition from Iron Age I to II the small highland settlements which might be tentatively called Israelite started disappearing as settlements consolidated into towns. The evidence points to trouble between the Philistines and these other settlements (a picture we see in the Bible in the time of Saul and David, which is exactly at this juncture of history).

Faust’s first conclusion then is that around 1000 B.C.E., Israelite culture became distinctively un-Philistine-like. This is pretty good evidence for Israel in late Iron Age I. But Faust continues to work backwards. Can we find Israel earlier?

The Four-Room House in Iron Age I
A distinctive of Israelite settlements in Iron Age II is the four-room house (see picture at right). This style of house was suited to a culture still farming and husbanding animals.

These four-room houses are also found in the highland settlements of Iron Age I. The four-room house appears to be a cultural distinctive of Israelites and is useful for marking a settlement as truly Israelite.

But can we go back to earlier layers and still distinguish Israel?

Decorated Pottery, Burial Customs, and the Late Bronze Age
Moving back into Late Bronze (1550 – 1200 B.C.E.), Faust notes that Canaanite towns contain a fair amount of decorated pottery, imported from the Aegean and Cyprus. Yet the highland settlements thought to be Israelite used plain pottery and have virtually no decorated or imported pottery.

Also, Israelite burial customs (much more simple than Canaanite customs) indicate a difference in the material remains.

The likely reason for small highland settlements of Israelites in Late Bronze is that the Canaanite city-states, with Egyptian military support, kept the Israelites from dominating the land. Their small settlements in the hills reflect a people marginalized. Yet by the end of Late Bronze, these Israelites were no longer marginalized and Canaanite culture disappears.

Again, this agrees with the Biblical story, as by the time of Saul and David, Israel’s hold on the land was nearly complete. Israel’s rival was no longer the Canaanites by Iron Age times, but the Philistines.

Conclusion and the Merneptah Stele
When and how did Israel come into the land? We should be surprised if archaeological remains alone could answer these questions.

Israel shows up in the 1200’s in highland settlements. Depending on how you date the Exodus story (1440 or 1290 B.C.E.) and the initial conquest of the land by Israel (1400 or 1250 B.C.E.) you might expect to find Israelite settlements appearing exactly when they do. Archaeology provides some evidence that the later date of the Exodus is most accurate.

And the more certain date of the Merneptah Stele (1210 B.C.E.) confirms what cultural clues in the material remains suggest. Israel was in the land in the 1200’s B.C.E.

Contrary to the claims made in some books and on television documentaries, the case for early Israel is pretty good. And we have some idea what early Israelites were like. They kept a simple, agrarian life in their four-room houses (the outer room could hold animals) and they preferred simple pottery. They seem not to have been infected with signs of power and wealth but to have a relatively egalitarian society. They did not conquer the land all at once, but slowly, which careful readers of Joshua and Judges will find to match the Biblical story perfectly.

Non-Jewish Messianic Judaism?

Today I really wanted my blog to be about finding early Israel (see the post below this, which is really the focus for today).

But I saw something on iTunes and had to bring it up. I was looking over other podcasts in Judaism in iTunes and found one by a “Messianic Jewish Senior Pastor.” My first thought is, “Jewish pastor?” Hmm, seems we are encountering non-Jewish Messianic Judaism here.

Then one of the reviews reads as follows: “Baruch Hashem! Finally a podcast that actually discusses the written Torah rather than the oral traditions of men!” And the name of the guy who wrote the comment? Zeke ben Michael. I don’t make this stuff up, I promise.

So, people have said to me many times, “Derek, where is the evidence that non-Jews in Messianic Jewish groups sometimes cause problems? It all seems peaceful to me.”

I am sharing this one example because I see similar ones routinely. Here is a non-Jew who gives himself a Jewish name and denounces Judaism as a false religion. Anyone should be able to say. “Something is wrong with this picture and these people are seriously confused.”

So, comments?

Finding Early Israel, Part 1

A nomadic people settle in a great empire and become a slave class for centuries until a deliverer leads them out through a wilderness and a generation later into a land they can conquer and call their own.

This is the Biblical story. Not much of it is evident from archaeology. How do you trace the movement of a small people and find their leavings in history?

You might object to my saying Israel was a small people. After all, the famous numbers in Exodus suggest a people two million strong (six hundred thousand men of fighting age). Yet many other texts suggest they were a small people, afraid of Egyptians and Canaanite towns.

I don’t have room here to do the notion justice, but it is widely thought that the numbers in Exodus must be a scribal mistake. The word for thousand also can mean clan or military troop. Perhaps the original text indicated Israel had six hundred squads of fighting men, about three thousand such men. If Israel had six hundred thousand men, they’d have no reason to fear villages of Canaanites which measured only a dozen acres themselves. They would have outnumbered any Canaanite village at least a hundred to one in fighting men. With three thousand fighting men, Israel as a people of ten thousand would fit the descriptions in Exodus and Numbers quite well.

No Easy Journey
Did this group ten thousand strong enter Canaan, a network of city-states ruled by Egypt, and simply topple one town after another until all the land was Israel’s?

We should disabuse ourselves of such romantic notions and not least because the Biblical story shows us otherwise.

There are texts which, if read incautiously, could support the shock-and-awe theory of Israel’s conquest and settling the land. Consider Joshua 21:43, “Thus the Lord gave to Israel all the land which he swore to give to their fathers; and having taken possession of it, they settled there.”

Yet there are also numerous texts, which I will demonstrate with two examples, indicating that the conquest was gradual and very incomplete at first:

Yet the sons of Manasseh could not take possession of those cities; but the Canaanites persisted in dwelling in that land (Joshua 17:12).

And the Lord was with Judah, and he took possession of the hill country, but he could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain, because they had chariots of iron (Judges 1:19).

So the conquest of Canaan by Israel is shown in the Bible in two ways:

(1) God promised the land to them and that the days of the Canaanites were coming to an end. Joshua shows that God brought this small people into the land and gave them miraculous victories establishing themselves in the land. Many texts indicate that they conquered and settled giving glory to God.

(2) In a few places in Joshua and more so in Judges we see that the conquest was very partial, mostly a matter of conquering some highlands and failing to conquer the more settled areas and the city-states. Some initial victories were seen to be temporary. The Canaanites (some with Egyptian help) rallied and kept Israel at bay. Some of these failures were due to the shortness of time as the conquest would be a long task and some were due to incomplete obedience. The people wavered when their strong leadership was gone.

As in numerous other cases, in the cultural world of the Bible, seemingly contradictory ideas are both affirmed. God faithfully gave Israel the land and at the same time, Israel’s struggle was only beginning since they took a tenuous hold on a land that would require generations to conquer.

Looking for Signs of Israel
Every now and then someone comes to me with news, “They’ve found Pharaoh’s chariot wheels in the Red Sea!”

You can find sensationalistic claims like that not only in National Enquirer, but also on the internet.

To some people, the idea that Israel might not have left large tracks, easy to find, in the Sinai or in the Arabian desert, is hard to swallow. If Israel in the wilderness was 2 million people strong dwelling there for forty years, then we might find some major evidence of their passing through.

But with a more realistic view of Israel, mentioned above and backed by mountains of evidence of populations of towns at the time, you can see how a group of ten thousand, maybe twenty at most, might not leave such a visible trace, especially if they lived in tents.

So, how can we find signs on Israel’s beginning? How can we complement the Biblical record with archaeology? We have learned many things about Israel from later periods through archaeology. What about early Israel, before the kings of Israel?

In some books (Israel Finkelstein’s books are classic examples) you will read that evidence for early Israel is not only missing but that the Biblical story is certainly a myth. David was at best a village chieftain or bandit lord with a few dozen men. Solomon ruled an anthill sized kingdom and his wealth and power are legend.

But Avraham Faust has recently published a new and interesting perspective. So far I have only read his article in the new issue of Biblical Archaeology Review. But his 2007 book is going on my amazon wish list today, Israel’s Ethnogenesis: Settlement, Interaction, Expansion, and Resistance (Approaches to Anthropological Archaeology) (Equinox Publishing, 2007). See it here.

The book won the 2009 Biblical Archaeology Society award for Best Scholarly Book on Archaeology.

Next time: a summary of Faust’s article and his intriguing approach to finding early Israel.